Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Bromborough Dock Bill.

Metropolitan Railway (Various Powers) Bill.

Bills committed.

Barnsley Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Chesterfield Corporation Bill (by Order),

Maidstone Corporation Bill (by Order),

Mitcham Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Nottingham Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Rawmarsh Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Rugby Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Torquay Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

HUNGARY (BRITISH DEBTS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire of the Hungarian Government the reason for their non-admission of British debts represented by claims against; the Hungarian Government and the city of Budapest; and will he instruct our representative in Hungary to protest against the dilatory methods of the Hungarian authorities in respect of the outstanding claims lodged with them by the British administrator of Hungarian property?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a similar question asked by him on 4th December last. I should add that about 80 per cent. of the total British claims against the Municipality of Budapest have been admitted, and further admissions are coming in regularly. With regard to claims in respect of Hungarian Government securities, as no agreement has been reached with the Hungarian Government, steps are being taken to refer the matter to the Anglo-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. In these circumstances it is not considered necessary to adopt the course indicated in the last part of the question. But if my hon. Friend has in mind any particular cases of claims against the Municipality of Budapest, or of other claims, not being claims in respect of Hungarian Government securities, where there has been undue delay on the part of the Hungarian Clearing Office, he should communicate on the matter with the Administrator of Hungarian Property, who will be pleased to take up such cases with the Hungarian Clearing Office.

FRENCH AND RUHR DISTRICT

Mr. LEACH: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the French action in the Ruhr is causing supplies of coke and pig-iron to
be despatched from this country to Germany to the detriment of our own iron industry; that Bradford ironfounders may shortly be compelled to shut down in consequence; and if he can take any steps in the matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware that there has been a considerable increase in the demand for coke for export, but I understand that coke manufacturers are fully alive to the necessity of meeting the inland demand.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the fact that the shortage of coke in this country just now is not so much due to the ovens not being at work, as to the fact that the coalowners can get such high prices for their raw coal that it does not pay them to make coke?

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 1,100 tons of coal were exported from Maryport, Cumberland, last week, and the consequence of that is to produce unemployment at a quicker rate than the Labour Department with their schemes can meet it?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Obviously, I cannot answer about any specific case. There are a good many factors, I think, which contribute, and certainly one of the factors leading to an increase of prices is the increased demand.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: I shall mention this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 2,500 ovens shut down which ought to be working, and making coke?

RAILWAYS (BRITISH CONTROL).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the railway on the right bank of the Rhine which runs, or ran, through the British sphere is to be retained under British control; and whether approaches have been made to His Majesty's Government to surrender the control of the railways to the French?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The proposals for the final settlement of the transport question in the British zone,
which are still the subject of negotiations, do not provide for French control of any railways in the British zone.

BRITISH TRADE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister what the Rhineland High Commission have decided as to the consignment of oxide of tin bought and paid for by an English firm and held up at Emmerich by the French?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's High Commissioner at Coblenz has not yet reported with regard to this consignment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As this has been going on for over a week now with great loss to the British importer, can any steps be taken to accelerate a settlement of this very important question?

Mr. McNEILL: The Government are quite aware of the seriousness of the question and we have been doing all we can to accelerate it. But it involves a good deal of difficult and intricate negotiation. I do not think any time has avoidably been lost.

Mr. RILEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the hindrances which are being placed upon the Yorkshire woollen and worsted trade in the Ruhr by the French administrators in that part of Germany; whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of Sir Henry Whitehead, the president of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce, to the effect which the French occupation of the Ruhr is having upon the Yorkshire woollen trade; and if he can have representations made to the French Government with a view to removing these hindrances to trade?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. I am fully aware of the difficulties of trading with occupied Germany in present circumstances. If British traders whose interests are adversely affected by the application of the existing regulations to contracts entered into before the recent occupation of the Ruhr will send particulars of their difficulties to the Board of Trade, with full details of the goods affected, steps will be taken to bring their cases to the notice of the French and Belgian authorities in the occupied areas with a view to facilities being accorded to them.

Mr. RILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the occupation of the Ruhr a very good trade was gradually being resumed between the West Riding manufacturers and the South-West part of Germany and that since the occupation difficulties have been placed in the way of that trade which are making it impossible for it to be carried on?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think difficulties are placed in the way of many trades. As regards existing contracts, which stand on a peculiar footing, we are trying to make special arrangements which will enable these contracts to be dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DYE INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any power to supervise the regulations of the associations of dyers in this country in the event of their enforcing regulations which impose a handicap on our textile manufacturers; and is he aware that the Bradford Association of Dyers, by insisting that a minimum of six pieces of cloth should be dyed to any one shade, are hindering our manufacturers, since the custom abroad is to allow a minimum of two pieces to any one shade?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The matter appears to be one for discussion between the interests concerned.

FOREIGN EXCHANGES.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some foreign countries, acting probably with the idea of bettering their exchange position, are placing obstacles in the way of the payment by their nationals of debts to British traders by making restrictive and constantly varying regulations in regard to the transfer of money abroad; and, seeing that this is a serious handicap to the restoration of our foreign trade, whether he will, if given a specific instance, consider the propriety of making friendly representations to the country concerned on the subject?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am well aware of the difficulties which attend the recovery of debts owing to British traders in certain European countries, difficulties which are undoubtedly enhanced in many cases by Government regulations of exchange transactions. Representations have already been made in certain cases where exceptional difficulties have been occasioned by Government measures in the foreign countries concerned, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will submit particulars of the specific case which he has in mind I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to what further action in this direction can usefully be taken.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (PICTURE POST- CARDS).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that picture postcards, executed in 50 different designs, with English texts, are being supplied by German manufacturers to stationers in Great Britain at the price of 2s. 6d. per gross; that the cards bear an imprint of a London firm as publisher but no imprint of the country of origin; and whether the merchandise marks legislation promised by the Government will contain provisions to stop the importation of unmarked goods of this description?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My attention has been drawn to an offer by a German firm to supply such postcards, the importation of which, if they are correctly described in the question, is prohibited under the existing Merchandise Marks Acts. I am informed that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are bringing the matter to the notice of Customs officers throughout the country with a view to action being taken should any attempt be made to import cards of the description in question.

MONTHLY EXPORTS.

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the total monthly exports from this country have increased or decreased since 1st November, 1922, and what are the figures of the increase or decrease?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer contains a table of figures; and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The table is as follows:

The following statement shows the declared values of the total exports from the United Kingdom registered during the months of November and December,

Month.
Total exports during month.
Increase (+) or Decrease (-) compared with the —


previous month.
corresponding month a year earlier.


1922.
£
£
£


November
…
…
…
…
75,639,000
(+) 6,963,000
(+) 2,921,000


December
…
…
…
…
67,362,000
(-) 8,277,000
(-) 1,216,000


1923.





January
…
…
…
…
76,737,000
(+) 9,375,000
(+) 5,131,000

The figures for December are affected by the interruption of trade caused by the Christmas Holidays.

Particulars for the month of February, 1923, are not yet available.

BROADCASTING APPARATUS.

Mr. HANCOCK: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what proportion of the broadcasting or listening-in apparatus now in use in this country was made in this country?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply to this question. I regret that I have no reliable information on the subject.

GAS CHARGES.

Mr. CLARRY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Departmental Committee, which was appointed to inquire as to the method of charging for gas on a thermal basis, will be available to Members?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Report is being printed, and will, I hope, be issued this week.

FLOUR AND OFFALS.

Major EDMONDSON: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion the total amount of flour imported

1922, and January, 1923, respectively; and, for each of these months, the increase or decrease compared with the total for (a) the previous month and (b) the corresponding month a year earlier:

ported into this country bears to the total amount of wheat imported; what amount of offals, if any, are exported; and what proportion this amount bears to the total amount of offals obtained from wheat ground in this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Taking the mean yearly imports of wheat during the three years, 1920–22, and making allowances for the difference in stocks at the beginning and end of the period and for foreign matter contained in the wheat, the amount of imported wheat available for milling in this country may be estimated at about 4,678,000 tons: a year. Assuming a 70 per cent. extraction, this amount of wheat would yield 3,274,600 tons of flour. The mean yearly import of wheat meal and flour during the same period was 688,197 tons, or 21 per cent. of the estimated flour equivalent of the imported wheat. The mean yearly export of corn offals (mainly wheat offals) for 1920–22 amounted to 56,014 tons. In the absence of exact information with regard to the quantity of wheat ground in this country, it may be estimated, on the basis of the figures already given, with an addition of 1,395,000 tons of homegrown wheat, that the yield of offals was approximately 1,800,000 tons yearly, of which not more than about 3 per cent. was exported.

PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION (GLASGOW STEAMSHIPS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 14 and 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will have inquiry made into the accommodation provided for steerage passengers in steamers plying between Glasgow, Belfast, and Dublin; and
(2) if he will have inquiry made into the service of steamers between Glasgow and the Western Isles and also into the accommodation provided for the passengers on board those steamers?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The passenger steamers referred to are surveyed once at least in every year by the Government surveyors, and cannot ply unless they are found fit in every respect, including accommodation, for the service intended. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any specific complaint about any particular ship, I will have the matter looked into. The general adequacy of a service for the needs of a particular district or trade is a matter for the shipowners and not for the Board of Trade.

MR. E. F. WISE, C.B.

Major BARNETT: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of Mr. E. F. Wise, C.B., acting Assistant Secretary at the Board of Trade, who has resigned from His Majesty's Civil Service in order to act as economic adviser in respect of foreign trade to the central union of the Soviet Russian co-operative societies (centrosoyus) and as a director of their London offices, he will say whether this gentleman has had official access to documents setting forth the claims of British subjects whose properties in Russia have been confiscated and disclosing their sources of information in that country; and whether he will be at liberty to communicate the confidential knowledge so obtained to his new employers and the Russian Soviet Government?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Mr. Wise, who was temporarily attached to the Board of Trade, has not been employed in the Russian Claims Department which deals with the claims to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. But as a member of the staff of the British Delegation at The Hague, Mr. Wise was in pos-
session of information compiled by that Department. No civil servant is ever at liberty to communicate any confidential information. This is expressly prohibited by the Official Secrets Act; and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the standard required of the British Civil Service in this matter has always been loyally maintained.

Major BARNETT: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman approves of such appointments, and are civil servants, after they have occupied confidential positions like this one, at liberty to sell their services to the highest bidder?

Mr. CLYNES: Before that question is answered, may I ask whether it is not a fact that Mr. Wise has served with great distinction and helpfulness to his country not only at the Ministry of Food, but in other Departments, and has not this appointment been generally welcomed by all who desire to see an early resumption of trade between this country and Russia?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In regard to Mr. Wise's services as a civil servant, I entirely agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). As far as I have known, the services of Mr. Wise have always been good services. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for South-Vest St. Pancras (Major Barnett), it is not for the Government either to approve or disapprove of appointments accepted by civil servants who have resigned. I would deprecate most sincerely the suggestion that any civil servant who leaves the public service, and takes up a. private appointment, is going to use confidential information for any purpose connected with it.

FOOD PRICES.

Mr. W. THORNE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any reasons why butter, cheese and sugar and other consumable articles have gone up in price; and if any notice has been taken, by the officials who make out the cost-of-living returns from time to time, about the jumps in the food prices?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware of any recent movements in the
prices of butter and cheese of an unusual character at this season of the year. In the case of sugar the rise price in this country has followed the market movements in the United States where there is said to have been a considerable increase in the consumption of sugar. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that changes in the retail prices of butter, cheese and sugar are taken into account in the compilation, by the Ministry of Labour, of the cost of diving index number.

Mr. THORNE: Do the gentlemen who compile these returns from time to time ever consult any of the wives of the working classes in any direction?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not sure of that, but I understand that very careful consideration was given to the original items under which the figures are fixed. The cost of these items is, I understand, collected from all over the country.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his own wife about this?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I always do, Sir.

Major WHELER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as possible, consult with the Minister of Agriculture, so that we may get information as to retail prices, the lack of which is causing great inconvenience?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.

LASCAR CREWS (WAGES).

Mr. SHINWELL: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of lascars sailing on British vessels and in what capacity; and whether he can state the rate of wages paid to lascars expressed in British currency?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will circulate a Table in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Following is the table promised:

The number of lascars employed on British ships at the time of the Census
taken on 19th June. 1921, was as follows:

Deck Department:



Petty officers
2,911


Others
10,952


Engine Room Department:



Petty officers
2,515


Others
16,546


Stewards' Department
11,317


Total
44,241

The rates of pay for lascar crews vary according to the port at which the men are engaged. The following are the rates for crews engaged at Calcutta. The sterling equivalent is calculated at the rate of exchange of the 3rd March.

Rating.
Rupees per month.
English currency.


Deck Dept.

£
s.
d.


Deck serang
60
4
1
3


1st tindal
37
2
10
1


2nd tindal
30
2
0
8


Cassab
30
2
0
8


Winchman
28
1
18
0


Lascars
25
1
13
10


Lascar boys
12
0
16
3


Bhandary
25
1
13
10


Topass
22
1
9
10


Engine room dept.


Fireman serang
60
4
1
3


1st tindal
35
2
7
5


2nd tindal
30
2
0
8


Donkeyman
28
1
18
0


Oilman
26
1
15
3


Fireman
23
1
11
2


Coal trimmer
18
1
4
5


Bhandary
25
1
13
10


Bhandary's mate
10
0
13
7


Stewards' dept.


Butler
70
4
14
10


2nd class butler
50
3
7
9


Baker
70
4
14
10


Chief cook
70
4
14
10


2nd cook
40
2
14
2


3rd cook
25
1
13
10


1st class pantry-man
40
2
14
2


Saloon boys
30
2
0
8


Officers' boys
30
2
0
8


Mess room boy
30
2
0
8


Butcher's mate
25
1
13
10


Scullion
24
1
12
6


Saloon topass
22
1
9
10


Bhandary
25
1
13
10

BRITISH SHIPPING (TONNAGE).

Mr. SHORT: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total tonnage of shipping produced in British shipyards during 1913 and 1922, respectively?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: According to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the total gross tonnage of merchant vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards launched in Great Britain and Ireland in each of the years 1913 and 1922 was as follows:

Tons (gross).


1913
1,932,153


1922
1,031,081

MEXICO.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir P. RICHARDSON: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of imports and exports between Mexico and Great Britain and the United States, respectively, in the years 1913, 1921, and 1922; and whether he is aware that there is a general consensus of opinion that recognition of the Government of Mexico would lead to an increase in British trade and to a diminution of unemployment in Great Britain?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to see whether recognition cannot be given to Mexico and thus encourage trade between this country and Mexico?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the whole Mexican position has been under consideration for some considerable time.

Following is the information promised:

The following statement shows the values of the trade of the United Kingdom and the United States, re-
spectively, with Mexico during the years specified.

Year.
United Kingdom.
United States.



(1) Total Imports from Mexico.



£
£


1913
1,880,000*
16,818,000†


1921
9,859,000*
30,968,000†


1992
8,604,000*‡
30,147,000†‡



(2) Total Exports to Mexico.



£
£


1913
2,498,000
9,888,000


1921
4,716,000
57,594,000


1922
2,301,000‡
24,812,000‡


*Values as declared at the ports of the United Kingdom.


†Values as declared in Mexico United States currency converted to sterling at the average rates for the respective years.


‡Provisional figures.

The second part of the question deals with matters of opinion on which I am not prepared to pronounce.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DIRECTOR OF STAFF DUTIES DEPARTMENT.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of officers, of what grades, and the pay and allowances of these grades respectively, in the Department of the Director of Staff Duties now and in 1913?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The reply to this question consists of a list of titles and figures, which, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

The officer staff of the Directorate of Staff Duties is composed at present as follows:

1 Director with pay and allowances of £2,103 a, year.

6 General Staff officers, 1st Grade, with pay and allowances of £1,335 a year.

10 General Staff officers, 2nd Grade, with pay and allowances of £990 a year.

7 General Staff officers, 3rd Grade, with pay and allowances of £790 a year.

1 Attached officer with pay and allowances of £700 a year.

1 Quartermaster with pay and allowances of £720 a year.

The corresponding staff in 1913 was

1 Director, £1,500 a year consolidated;

3 General Staff officers, 1st Grade, £800 a year consolidated;

9 General Staff officers, 2nd Grade, £650 a year consolidated;

7 General Staff officers, 3rd Grade, £500 a year consolidated;

1 Quartermaster, £300–£15–2400 a year—

and part of the time of an Assistant Adjutant-General, whose total pay was £800 a year.

ARMY COUNCIL.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the personnel of the Army Council and the total pay and allowances of the above, now and in 1913?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Army Council consists of three Ministers, four military members and at present two joint secretaries. It consisted in 1913 of three Ministers and four military members. The aggregate salaries amounted to £17,500 in 1913, and are now £28,861, including the salaries of the joint secretaries, who in 1913 were not members of the Army Council.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the cost be reduced in the near future?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: A good deal of the additional cost will be found, if the hon. Member will look at my answer, to be due to the fact that the secretaries were not members in 1913, and their pay is not included.

Mr. LANSBURY: Have these two secretaries been added?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that these members of the Army Council are not paid as members of the Army Council?

WAR OFFICE (OFFICERS' PAY AND PENSIONS).

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers employed at the War Office are in receipt of pensions (other than War pensions) and military pay; and if he will grant a Return giving their names and the amount of such pensions and pay in each case?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: Two officers employed in the War Office under special conditions are at present in receipt of pay at £2 17s. 9d. and £1 18s. 9d. per day respectively in addition to retired pay of £120 per annum. Instructions were given some time ago for the retired pay to be suspended from 1st April next. In the circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will agree that it is unnecessary to make a formal Return.

TROOPS (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will inform the House of the number of troops now stationed in Northern Ireland, and the purposes for which they are stationed there; whether it is proposed to withdraw any of the troops; and, if so, at what date?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The number of troops at present is 10 battalions, but by the 1st April next it will be five battalions only, in each case with the proportionate ancillary units. Troops are stationed in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in order to occupy existing military accommodation and to discharge appropriate military functions.

Mr. HARRIS: Are these troops paid for by Northern Ireland, or by this country?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Northern Ireland, for military purposes, is part of this country.

APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE (R. H. HAMMOND).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Robert Harold Hammond, No. 4,684,145, enlisted in August, 1922, when his age was only 17 years and 8 months; that, prior to his attaining the age of 18 years, his widowed
mother sent his birth certificate to Pontefract and applied for his release on corn-passionate grounds; that his release I as been refused, although he had work to go to and is the only breadwinner of the family; and will he state why a youth whose age is known to the Army authorities as being under 18 years of age is retained in the Army?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the circumstances of this case. Hammond, when he enlisted, misstated his age, and the general rule in these circumstances is that the recruit is held to serve unless either he is under 17, or his discharge is specially sanctioned as a concession on grounds of extreme compassion. I am not prepared to alter the general rule, but I will inquire further into the reasons for which Hammond's discharge on compassionate grounds has been refused, and will communicate again with the hon. Member.

MILITARY MISSION (PARIS).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the nature of the emergency which necessitates the retention in Paris of a staff directed by a major-general; and why this mission is maintained, in view of the fact that the presence of a single lieutenant-colonel in Paris previous to 1914 was considered sufficient to deal with the elaboration of plans necessitated by the imminence of a European war?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The staff referred to, directed by a major-general, forms the British Section of the Allied Military Committee of Versailles, which, under the Presidency of Marshal Foch, is responsible for keeping the Allied Council of Ambassadors in Paris informed of the progress made in execution of the military clauses of the various Peace Treaties, and for advising on measures required to carry out the terms of treaties.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: In view of the fact that Paris and London are so close, is it not possible to refer these questions to London for consideration and only send over from London to Paris when an emergency arises?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not think that would be practicable. The
work in Paris is much heavier than in London, but in spite of that fact, the French find it necessary to keep a full general in London with three officers under him.

Mr. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that no notice is taken of this mission in France, and would it not save expense to do away with it?

Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is it not a fact that the attitude of the French Government relating to the Ruhr was taken in opposition to the wishes of our Government, and is it necessary to keep this staff in Paris, which is really backing up the French attitude?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

BRITISH CEMETERIES (ARRAS).

Mr. W. THORNE: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that for nearly three years a British firm has been looking after the British cemeteries in Arras, France, and that the contractor engaged a number of British ex-service men to do the work, who took their wives and children out with them; that the last two contracts have been given to a Belgian firm and, consequently, about 90 ex-service and married men will be discharged and will have to be sent home, which will add to the number of men out of employment in this country; if he can state the reasons why the Belgian firm has received the contracts to look after British cemeteries; and if he will take action in the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. All the British military cemeteries in France and Belgium are cared for, not by contractors, but by British ex-service men in the direct employ of the Imperial War Graves Commission who have no intention of making any alteration in the practice. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
If, however, the hon. Member is referring to contracts for the construction of cemeteries, I would point out that a British firm, who was the lowest tenderer, has just received a contract for the construction of 22 cemeteries, and I trust,
therefore, that no British workmen hitherto employed on such work will be discharged.
The Imperial War Graves Commission would, however, be obliged if the hon. Member would communicate the details of any cases he may have in mind in order that inquiry may be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

MEDALS.

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a Territorial soldier who serves 11 years and 11 months in the ranks and then is granted a commission is entitled to receive the Territorial efficiency medal on his completion of the necessary 12 years' service; and, seeing that the granting of this medal is one of the original conditions under which the man was enlisted, will he make inquiries?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I do not think that any special inquiries are necessary. The appropriate reward for long and meritorious service in the commissioned ranks of the Territorial Army is not the medal, but the Territorial decoration, towards which half of previous service in the ranks reckons as qualifying service.

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably consider the case of the Territorial soldier who signed the Imperial service obligation up to the end of 1915; and whether he will extend the date for the grant of the Territorial war medal to the end of 1915 in the case of those who subsequently served overseas, thus differentiating between the conscripts and the volunteers?

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The Army Council do not propose to vary the conditions under which the Territorial war medal is granted. They do not think it desirable, in the matter of the grant of war medals, to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory service?

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the men who were conscripted in October,
1918, receive two medals to-day, while the men who enlisted in the Imperial Service in 1914 and served two years and ten months fighting receive only the same medal, and are entitled to no other? Is not that an injustice?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Territorial war medal was specially instituted to recognise the freely accepted obligation for oversea service in time of peace, and I am afraid that it would not be suitable to extend it to the kind of case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that ex-service men are more interested in getting work and meals than in receiving medals?

CADET CORPS (GRANT).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the reason for the withdrawal of the Government grant from cadet corps; what was the expenditure involved and whether, in view of the educational and national value of the movement, he will reconsider the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies of a week ago. I much regret that I am not able to reconsider the decision.

Mr. BRIANT: Can my hon. and gallant Friend promise to give any assistance in the direction of equipment?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The grant of equipment has only been sanctioned for one year.

Mr. BRIANT: Can the Under-Secretary say exactly what that means? Does it mean for this year?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Yes: it means for this year, at a cost of about £10,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

CLUBS.

Mr. BRIANT: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what grants from the United Services Fund for the establishment of clubs for ex-service men have been made; and how many of these clubs have since ceased to exist?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 19th February to the hon. Member for East Fife, to the effect that grants to these clubs are a matter for the United Services Fund and not for the, War Office. I gather, however, from pages 4 and 5 of the Report of the fund for the year ending 30th September, 1922, that during the year in question over £1,027,000 was expended in 6,455 grants to clubs and other similar objects, and that only 49 out of 3,477 clubs assisted by the fund ceased to exist.

Major WHELER: When is that fund going to be used up and how much longer is it going to be kept back?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question down.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir RAYMOND GREENE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the anxiety among disabled ex-service men, temporarily employed in the Civil Service, who have not passed the examination for permanent employment; and whether, since the recruitment of boys from school into the permanent Civil Service will interfere with the possibility of continued employment for these men, he can make any statement on the present policy of the Government in the matter of Civil Service recruitment which will make the position of the disabled men clear?

Captain KING (Lord of the Treasury, in, the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer): No arrangements have been made for the recruitment to the clerical and departmental clerical classes of boys from school, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, special steps have been taken to enable disabled ex-service men, temporarily employed in a clerical capacity in Government Departments, to obtain permanent posts therein. My right hon. Friend fears that he cannot undertake to go beyond these arrangements, but I would like to point out that 26,849 disabled men, comprising 14.6 per cent. of the male permanent staff and 11 per cent. of the total permanent staff, male and female, were permanently employed in the Government service on the 1st Febru-
ary. I think it would be agreed that the latter percentage compares very favourably with the 5 per cent. required of employers generally for inclusion on the King's National Roll.

SMALL HOLDINGS, LINLITHGOW

Mr. SHINWELL: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that ex-service men who occupy small holdings at Parkhead, Linlithgow, are paying in some instances £4 per acre for land which was formerly valued at 30s. per acre; whether any complaints have been received with regard to the condition of the roads in the vicinity and the difficulty experienced in transport; and whether it is proposed to improve the hut accommodation at present provided for these men?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The rent paid by the former tenant under a pre-War lease was 35s. per acre. The new holders pay an average rent per acre of 23s. 1d. for land and, in addition, 31s. 2d. for repayment of loans for buildings. The Board have agreed to provide road metal for the repair of roads, but the holders have not fulfilled their undertaking to cart and spread the metal supplied. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make some inquiry into the complaints made by these ex-service men to ascertain whether the facts are as stated, end deal with the matter when he has made inquiries?

Captain ELLIOT: I have already made inquiries into the facts as stated, and I do not find, for instance, any single case of a, payment of £ an acre being made by these ex-service men.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiry into the allegations made with regard to the condition of the roads in the vicinity and the difficulty of transport and the appalling conditions under which these men are living on the allotments?

Captain ELLIOT: I will certainly look further into the matter, but there is a quite definite statement as to the fact that the men have not carried out their side of the undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ESTATE CHARGES (ORKNEY).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether a reply can now be given to the memorial from the County Council of Orkney with regard to the skatts payable to the Crown or the donatories of the Crown from lands in the county of Orkney?

Captain ELLIOT: I am informed that the request of the county council as to the period over which the existing Superior Duties are to be averaged for purposes of redemption Las been largely met by a decision of the Treasury to extend the period in the case of sales during the past and the current years from 7 to 15 years. The Government is not prepared to promise legislation to give effect to the other claims made in the memorial, which are similar to claims that have been put forward and rejected from time to time in the past.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does the Secretary for Scotland deny the justice of this claim?

Captain ELLIOT: The Secretary for Scotland has considered the matter, and come to an arrangement with the Treasury whereby part of the claim is met. The Government are not prepared to promise legislation as to the other part.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the benefit of the English Members, tell the House what is a "skat"?

Captain ELLIOT: "skat" (Norse, skattr—tax, tribute) is an incident of the udal tenure payable by udallers in respect of their lands to the earl or to the Crown in right of the bishop. It is an annual payment made in agnitionem dominii, but not a feudal burden—the udallers holding tanquam optimœ maximœ. Though not a fen-duty, it is a Charge on the estate.

WOMEN FRANCHISE.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that in a municipal burgh the registration officer is required to see that a person who has more than
one qualification for the local government franchise is only registered once for such franchise in such burgh; and whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the franchise legislation so as to secure that females, who can only vote once at a Parliamentary election, will only be registered once?

Captain ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, as far as concerns town council elections in any burgh, or parish council elections in a burgh comprising a single parish undivided into wards. Legislation to provide that no woman shall be registered for more than one Parliamentary constituency (apart from a university constituency) is not at present contemplated.

Mr. J. STEWART: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, apart from females who are entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors in respect of a university qualification, he can state the number of females in Glasgow who are registered, or qualified to be registered, in more than one Parliamentary division; whether he is aware that such females, although registered more than once, are only allowed under the present Statutes to vote once at a General Election; whether he has any information whether any females voted at the last General Election more than once; and, if so, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Captain ELLIOT: The estimated number of females referred to in the first part of the question is 11,396. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information that any females voted more than once (excluding votes in respect of university constituencies) at the last General Election. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. PRINGLE: What steps are taken to prevent voters voting twice?

Captain ELLIOT: That is a very large question, in which the whole of the Representation of the People Act is concerned.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, in view of the introduc-
tion of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill this Session, consolidating and amending the enactments relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales, he is prepared to introduce a similar Measure dealing with salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland, and giving effect to the proposals contained in that final Report of the Scottish Freshwater Fishery Committee which reported in 1919?

Captain ELLIOT: It is not regarded as practicable to add such a Measure to the existing programme of legislation for the present Session.

Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that legislation on this subject is long overdue for Scotland. Will he undertake to consult, the inspector of salmon fisheries and the Scottish Angling Association and other bodies concerned on the subject?

Captain ELLIOT: It is a question of consulting the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, as it is a matter of Parliamentary time.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Why should not Scotland have differential treatment?

ILLEGAL TRAWLING (PATROL VESSELS).

Major WARING: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health where the patrol vessels have been stationed during the month of February; the distance sailed by each; and the number of cases of illegal trawling detected during the month?

Captain ELLIOT: During February the five cruisers of the Fishery Board for Scotland were stationed as follows:

"Brenda"—South-east Coast.
"Freya."—Moray Firth.
"Norna"—Shetland, Orkney and North Coast.
"Minna"—West Coast (excluding Firth of Clyde).
"Vigilant"—Firth of Clyde.

In addition, His Majesty's trawler "Exe" was engaged in the Moray Firth area. Six cases of alleged illegal fishing wore detected by the cruisers during the month. Information as to the mileage steamed by each of the cruisers is not at resent available.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the Secretary for Scotland appointed an inquiry into illegal trawling?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the speed of the vessels is sufficient to enable them to catch the illegal trawlers?

Captain ELLIOT: Obviously their position is rather that of prevention than of cure. We desire to prevent illegal trawling rather than to catch those who have committed the crime.

EYEMOUTH HARBOUR.

Major WARING: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that the estimate for the improvements to Eyemouth harbour has been greatly reduced; and will he, in view of the urgent necessity for improvement, consider recommending the adoption of the scheme?

Captain ELLIOT: No revised estimate of the scheme of improvements formulated in 1921 and then estimated to cost £195,000 has been submitted to the Fishery Board for Scotland, but if the reduction referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is due merely to falling costs of labour and material, I fear it will be insufficient to bring the cost down to such a figure as to make it a practical proposition at the present time.

Major WARING: Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?

Captain ELLIOT: I shall be very glad to look into it privately with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we can subsequently consider the question of a deputation.

DEER FORESTS.

Major M. WOOD: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if the Government has yet decided whether they are to carry out the recommendations of the Deer Forests Committee, which reported in November, 1921; and whether any of the suggestions for immediate action made by the committee have been adopted?

Captain ELLIOT: Legislation would be required to enable effect to be given to the main recommendations and sug-
gestions of the Committee, and, as I stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western Aberdeen on the 27th February, my Noble Friend is unable to give an undertaking that legislation on the subject can be included in the programme of the present Session. The practicability of obtaining information as to stocks by voluntary returns is being examined.

Major WOOD: Has there been any definite decision to legislate at all on the matter?

Captain ELLIOT: Yes, obviously one of the things asked for was the returns on the subject, and we wish to get the returns in before considering the question of legislation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that six committees have reported on this subject for over 20 years, and that even now farmers are having their crops eaten up wholesale by deer?

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Was not legislation promised last Session by the Secretary for Scotland, and are not the signatories to the Report gentlemen of all shades of political opinion, which shows that legislation would probably be non-contentious?

Captain ELLIOT: However non-contentious the legislation, it would be taking considerable risk to promise to add to the heavy programme of the present year.

FREE SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Major M. WOOD: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether there are any education authorities in Scotland who have not carried out their obligations under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to provide free secondary schools; and, if so, whether he will give the names of the authorities concerned?

Captain ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the third paragraph of the Department's Circular No. 20, issued on 13th January, 1920, a copy of which I am sending him. So far the Department have not found it necessary to call upon any Authority in terms of the first sentence of the third paragraph thereof. If, however, the hon. Member has in his mind any case in which such action seems to
him desirable, my Noble Friend will be glad to look into the matter, if the necessary information is furnished him.

Major WOOD: Cannot I have an explicit answer to a very straight question? Have any authorities not carried out the law laid down in the Statute?

Captain ELLIOT: No authority has defaulted so as to make it necessary for the Department to take action in the matter.

Major WOOD: Have they defaulted in any way?

Mr. NICHOL: Is it not the case that in Glasgow proposals have been put forward to charge fees in many secondary schools which were free up to the present year?

Captain ELLIOT: I must ask for notice.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS (CONSOLIDATION).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, whether, for the convenience of agriculturists, he will introduce a Bill to consolidate all the Acts relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland?

Major DUDGEON: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that there is a strong desire in all agricultural organisations in Scotland for an Act to consolidate the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts; and if he can state that a Bill with this object in view will be introduced at an early date?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend proposes to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts in another place at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. MILLAR: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendations, made by the Committee of representatives of Scottish local authorities appointed to advise with the Scottish Board of Health in regard to the amount of the State grant required to meet the annual deficit on future local building schemes, as to
the necessity for the payment of a minimum subsidy of £6 per house in the case of the larger and more populous districts in Scotland, and of a larger amount in the case of the smaller burghs and districts; and whether, in view of the higher cost of building in Scotland, he is prepared to give effect to the Committee's proposals?

Captain ELLIOT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, my Noble Friend is arranging to receive a deputation from the committee referred to this week.

Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the committee in question was composed of the principal housing experts in Scotland?

Captain ELLIOT: A special Conference has been arranged by the Secretary for Scotland. I do not see what more can be done at present.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts paid by way of housing subsidies to England

—
Private Builders' Subsidy.
Grants towards Deficits on Housing Schemes.
Total.


England and Wales.
£
£
£


1919–20
…
…
…
…
—
2,653
2,653


1920–21
…
…
…
…
2,528,552
525,728
3,054,280


1921–22
…
…
…
…
4,537,884
4,533,229
9,071,113


1922–23 (Estimated)
…
…
2,450,000
7,500,000
9,950,000


1923–24 (Estimated)
…
…
—
8,750,000
8,750,000



9,516,436




Scotland.





1919–20
…
…
…
…
—
—
—


1920–21
…
…
…
…
77,600
57,540
135,140


1921–22
…
…
…
…
280,137
378,110
658,247


1922–23 (Estimated)
…
…
183,963
650,000
833,963


1923–24 (Estimated)
…
…
15,000
910,000
925,000



556,700

he maximum grant of £15,000,000 provided for subsidies to private builders under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, was allocated by the Treasury between England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland in the Goschen proportions, but, although the period originally fixed under that Act was extended for both countries, and special arrangements were made to

and Scotland, respectively, for the years 1919–20, 1920–21, and 1921–22, and the estimated sums payable for the years 1922–23 and 1923–24; and if, seeing that the basis of allocation to Scotland should be eleven-eightieths of the subsidy payable to England, he will say to what extent Scotland has so far failed to receive from the Treasury its due proportion of the housing subsidies?

Captain KING: As the answer is rather long, and contains a tabular statement of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Third Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, at page 72, definitely states that only £300,000 is paid in housing subsidies to Scotland, as against £10,000,000 paid in subsidies to England, and is that in accordance with the recognised Treasury practice on the subject?

Captain KING: The hon. Member will see that in the figures stated.

Following is the table:

meet the exceptional circumstances of Scottish crofters, the scheme was not adopted by private builders in Scotland to the same proportionate extent as in England.

As regards the housing schemes of local authorities and public utility societies, it was represented to the Treasury that a limitation of the Scottish grant to the
Goschen proportion of the English grant would operate unfairly to Scotland, owing to the higher cost of building in that country, and the limitation was accordingly based upon the numbers of houses, special allowance being made under this head for the smaller number of houses likely to be built in Scotland under the private builders' subsidy.

In the aggregate the total number of houses built or to be built in Scotland under the old subsidy arrangements is estimated at about 28,900, which differs very littlle from the Goschen proportion of the corresponding English figure (about 215,000). Progress has, however, been much slower in Scotland than in England, and, whereas in England the peak of the subsidy payable under the old housing scheme will, it is expected, be reached in 1923–24, this point will probably not be reached in Scotland until the year 1925–26.

Mr. MILLAR further: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health when a decision will be arrived at regarding the assistance which will be provided by way of Government grant to meet the deficiency arising in connection with future local building schemes in Scotland; and whether local authorities in Scotland may now proceed with building schemes on the footing that they will participate in any grant to be made available for that purpose?

Captain ELLIOT: With regard to the first part of the question, this matter is being considered and will be discussed with the deputation from local authorities which my Noble Friend is arranging to receive this week. In reply to the latter part of the question, it is proposed to provide in the Housing Bill that local authorities who, with the approval of the Scottish Board of Health, have undertaken building schemes before the passing of the Act shall not be prejudiced as regards any financial assistance which may be made available under the Act on account of their having acted in anticipation of the passing of the Measure.

RENTS, MID-LANARK.

Mr. SULLIVAN: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health as some of the houses in Mid-Lanark have been occupied two years, when the rent will be fixed?

Captain ELLIOT: The rents at certain sites in the Middle Ward of Lanark have been adjusted between the local authority and the Scottish Board of Health. As regards other cases it is open to the local authority, if they are unable to accept the rents which the Board propose, to appeal to the Rents Tribunal by whom the rents fall to be fixed in cases of dispute. In one such case the rents have been so fixed and I understand that the local authority have under consideration the question of appealing to the Tribunal in other cases.

Mr. SULLIVAN: The houses have been occupied two years. Only one case has been settled and we have 30 building sites. When are we likely to get the rents fixed?

Captain ELLIOT: The answer is perfectly distinct. The local authority is considering appealing to the Rent Tribunal in certain other cases. The onus lies on the local authority.

Mr. SULLIVAN: The local authority has appealed 18 months ago and no arbitration court can be got to meet.

GAS SUPPLY, THORNLIEBANK.

Mr. NICHOL: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if immediate steps can be taken to ensure that the houses erected by the district committee of Upper Renfrewshire at Jenny Lind, Thornliebank, many of which have been occupied for over eight months, are supplied with gas for lighting and heating?

Captain ELLIOT: The Scottish Board of Health have recently received a deputation from the local authority on this subject, and they are making further inquiries with a view to seeing whether the difficulties that have occurred can be overcome.

Mr. NICHOL: Is it not the case that since the scheme was put into operation a change was made by the Board of Health, which has now held up the question?

Captain ELLIOT: That is just one of those technical questions which are not suitable for discussion by question and answer on the Floor of the House. I shall be pleased to discuss it with the hon. Member afterwards.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a question of someone in authority telling people to do the right thing?

EVICTION ACTIONS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. STEPHEN: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state the number of actions during 1922 for eviction in Glasgow Sheriff Court for non-payment of rent; and, where decrees for the same have been given, how many of the tenants were unemployed, ex-service men, and unemployed ex-service men?

Captain ELLIOT: I regret that I cannot give a precise figure, but of 12,438 applications for summary removing brought in the Glasgow Sheriff Court in 1922 the great majority were for nonpayment of rent. No information is available in reply to the last part of the question.

Mr. STEPHEN: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state the number of actions in the Scottish Sheriff Courts arising from the interpretation of Section 3 (1) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920; the number of actions in which a decision was given; and the number of cases outstanding at 15th February?

Captain ELLIOT: I regret that the information desired is not available.

EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state what His Majesty's Government are doing with reference to the provision of loans or credits for approved schemes in the Overseas Dominions; what proportion of the total, said to be £100,000,000, will be available for Crown Colory development; and if His Majesty's Government are taking into consideration the importance of Empire development as a permanent solution of the unemployment problem?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 20th February.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: When are we likely to have information on this point?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The matter is being gone into very carefully by the Treasury, and we are awaiting their report.

Mr. ERSKINE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of our having to pay the American Government £2,250,000,000 in the next 62 years in dollars, he will,. in conjunction with the Canadian Government consider the advisability of encouraging wheat production in that country and inter-Colonial trade generally for the purpose not only of diminishing our purchases from the United States, but also for cheapening dollars and so reducing the payments due for interest and sinking fund to the United States?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): His Majesty's Government is at all times anxious to encourage inter-Empire trade, and arrangements for an Economic Conference are now being discussed with the Dominions.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

BRITISH COMMITMENTS.

Mr. PRINGLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in considering our commitments in Iraq, have invited the evidence of the Minister of War in the Iraq Cabinet, who is now in London?

The PRIME MINISTER: The gentleman mentioned in the question is in frequent communication with the Colonial Office, and the hon. Member may be satisfied that his views are available to the Government..

CAIRO CONFERENCE, MARCH, 1921.

Mr. PRINGLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay Papers containing the minutes and decisions of the Cairo Conference in March, 1921?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not think that there would be any advantage in laying the Papers referred to. The decisions of policy taken as a result of the Cairo Conference were fully explained to the House by representatives of the late Government.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, without knowledge of the grounds on which these decisions are based, the House is not in a position to form an opinion as to the liabilities involved in these decisions. Is it not the case, for example, that the cost of the reconditioning of existing railways, which was estimated for the purposes of the Conference, has never been announced to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: The policy with regard to Iraq, which I take it is what the hon. Member is referring to, will come before the House when the Estimates come up.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not essential that we should know exactly what are our commitments before we come to a decision?

Captain BENN: What is the objection to publishing the Papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: They are very old.

EX-CABINET MINISTERS (PENSIONS).

Mr. LANSBURY: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ex-Cabinet Ministers are at present receiving pensions and allowances from State funds, and the amount paid to each person: what statutory or other declaration of means is required before such pensions are granted; how often the cases are reviewed, and by whom: and whether, in deciding the eligibility of ex-Cabinet Ministers for pensions, any inquiry is made as to family income or the ability of children or other relatives to give the financial assistance needed?

Captain KING: Four ex-Cabinet Ministers are in receipt of pensions at the rate of £5,000 per annum under the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act, 1832, to the terms of which I would refer the hon. Member. Three out of the four do regular work as judicial members of the House of Lords and members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Two ex-Cabinet Ministers are in receipt of pensions under the Political Officers Pension Act, 1869, the amounts being £2,000 per annum and £1,200 per annum respectively. A candidate for the grant of a pension under this
Act is required to submit to the Treasury a declaration in the terms prescribed by Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, and an undertaking is given prior to the grant of the pension that in the event of the pensioner's pecuniary circumstances improving to a material extent, the pension will be surrendered.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question—are the family incomes taken into account in assessing the poverty of the person applying for a pension?

Captain KING: The hon. Member can ascertain that by referring to Section 6 of the Superannuation Act.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the names of these two gentlemen who are drawing out-of-work pay? Is he aware that one of these gentlemen—whose names I know—stated that his winnings on horse-racing in one year amounted to £60,000? Is he also aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: The bon. Member is giving information. He should put down a question as to the names, although I think they are already before the House.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these ex-Cabinet Ministers by the judicial work they are doing more than pay the salaries they are drawing?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, owing to these cases not coming under review, one of the last recipients of an ex-Cabinet Minister's pension died an extremely wealthy man—Lord Balfour of Burleigh; and is it not time that these people were called up for review, as are the old age pensioners? [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Becker.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. Is it in order to introduce a personal reference to the affairs of a deceased nobleman, that reference being, to my certain knowledge, absolutely untrue?

Mr. LANSBURY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been trying to give information.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: May I ask whether it is the fact—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Becker.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. BECKER: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Income Tax authorities are collecting moneys due to the Imperial Exchequer which were owing prior to the Irish Free State Government assuming control?

Captain KING: Income Tax leviable in the Irish Free State (including arrears) is collected by the revenue authorities of the Free State and paid into the Free State Exchequer.

Mr. BECKER: What authority has the Free State Government to collect that money, which is really due to the British Exchequer?

Captain KING: I understand that the custom in collecting Income Tax is that arrears come into the following year, and, therefore, the Irish Free State is collecting the arrears.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is any statutory authority, either here or in the Irish Free State, for this practice?

Captain KING: I would ask the hon. Member to put another question down as to that.

Mr. EDMUND TURTON: Is it not a fact that no arrears of Income Tax of any sort are being collected in Ireland, because everyone is refusing to pay Income Tax?

PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE (CUSTOMS' SEARCH).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that passengers and their luggage are searched at Holyhead when crossing over to Ireland and that on arrival at Kingstown the passengers are again searched; which Government pays for the extra Customs officials at Holyhead; and will he put an end to this search at 2 a.m.?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The luggage of passenger crossing to Ireland is searched at Holyhead, and I understand that they
are liable to a further search on arrival at Kingstown. The Customs officials who conduct the search at Holyhead are paid by His Majesty's Government; but it has not been found necessary to appoint additional staff for this purpose. In reply to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government do not see their way at present to relaxing this useful and necessary measure of control over the removal of firearms and ammunition from this country to Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not unnecessary to have two searches, one at Holyhead and one at Kingstown, and is the hon. Member not aware that this double search is very inconvenient at 2 a.m.?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I know it is very inconvenient, but so long as conditions are what they are in Southern Ireland, His Majesty's Government feel they can take no risk in allowing possible further revolvers and bombs to go into the country, if they can possibly avoid it.

RATE COLLECTORS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the numerous cases in which Poor Rate collectors in Ireland were deprived of their positions under duress by local bodies or by the Irish Republican Army in 1920 and 1921 because they carried out the instructions of the Local Government Board in Ireland, which was then a Department of the British Government, instead of obeying the contrary instructions of the local bodies; whether he is aware that these men have received no salary or allowances since 1920, and have thereby suffered heavy losses; that repeated representations have been made to the British Government on this matter; and that the late Chief Secretary promised these men that grants payable to the Provisional Government would not be paid until they were paid by the Provisional Government; and whether he will take steps to see that these men are paid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am aware that a certain number of rate-collectors have lost their employment in circumstances such as those referred to by the hon. and learned Member. His Majesty's Government has been in correspondence with the
Free State Government in the matter, who have taken the view that these officers are not entitled to pension or gratuity under the provisions of Section 8 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919; and, in fact, the Local Government Board did not award any such pensions or gratuity in these cases as in the other cases in respect of which representations were made to and assurances received from the Provisional Government. The Free State Government has, however, offered to submit the case of these men to independent arbitration, and the necessary steps for this purpose are being taken.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he is adhering to the pledge given by the late Chief Secretary in February, 1922, to the effect that no grants will be paid to the Irish Government by this country unless and until the Irish Government have paid their debts to these rate collectors?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that would hardly be practicable, as we have arranged to pay certain advances to the Irish Free State Government as compensation. The matter is under arbitration now, and I hope it will be settled satisfactorily.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Mr. PETO: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the estimated revenue and expenditure of the Free State Government and the amount of compensation for murder, arson, and damage by irregular forces operating in Southern Ireland since the setting up of the Free State Government; and whether he can assure the House that no part of such compensation or of any deficit in the Free State Government revenue will, by loan, credit advance, or any 'other means become a charge on the revenue of Great Britain?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no information with regard to the first two parts of the question, other than that which can be obtained from the published proceedings of the Parliament of the Irish
Free State. With regard to the last part of the question, I must point out that no charges can be placed upon the Consolidated Fund except by the Imperial Parliament; but I may add that no suggestion has been made either directly or indirectly by the Government of the Free State that responsibility in respect of any such charges as the hon. Member specifies should be assumed by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. PETO: Can we have an assurance that at some future date the Government will not consider making a grant to defray the deficit of the Irish Free State Government

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has not the time arrived when, instead of stirring up strife, hon. Members should try to bring peace?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have seen a little of that on both sides.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. HANNON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total estimated refunds of Excess Profits Duty which still remain to be paid by the Exchequer?

Captain KING: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to forecast the total amount of Excess Profits Duty that will be repaid in the future.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts received from the Excess Profits Duty and the Munitions Levy, respectively, during each year they were in operation, the amounts of the repayments made in each year, and the amount of the claims for repayment of the Excess Profits Duty still outstanding?

Captain KING: As the answer contains a large number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

STATEMENT showing for the United Kingdom the gross receipt, repayments and net receipt of the Excess Profits
Duty and Munitions Levy during each year they were in operation:


Year.
Gross Receipt.
Repayments.
Net Receipt.



Excess Profits Duty.



£
£
£


1915–16
187,846
—
187,846


1916–17
138,008,790
1,182,494
136,826,296


1917–18
205,777,184
3,635,271
202,141,913


1918–19
268,891,916
7,280,920
261,610,996


1919–20
296,778,885
13,006,679
283,772,206


1920–21
234,724,592
17,579,212
217,195,380


1921–22
122,142,427
91,664,614
30,477,813



Munitions Levy.



£
£
£


1916–17
4,788,636
—
4,788,636


1917–18
21,234,065
259,888
20,974,177


1918–19
22,658,039
292,174
22,365,865


1919–20
5,617,723
181,883
5,435,840


1920–21
1,401,323
447,575
963,748


1921–22
200,468
1,007,589
— 807,121

As regards the current financial year, the gross receipt of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) from 1st April, 1922, to 28th February, 1923, is approximately £49,500,000; the net receipt during the same period amounts to slightly over £1,000,000. I regret that I am unable to forecast the amount of repayments to be made in. the future.

INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Mr. HANNON: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange in future to show separately in the weekly revenue returns the proceeds from Income Tax and Super-tax?

Captain KING: It has been arranged that this shall be done from the 1st April next.

BEER DUTIES.

Mr. HANNON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had any estimates prepared showing the probable increase in the consumption of beer which would result from the reduction of the present duty on beer equivalent to 2d. per pint and 1d. per pint, respectively; and to what extent the reduction would affect the Exchequer if no increase in the consumption of beer
took place and if the increase in consumption which he has estimated as a consequence of the reduction of duty took place, respectively?

Captain KING: My right hon. Friend could not undertake to put forward estimates of this kind in advance of the relevant Budget Debates.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. BRIANT: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the payment of Entertainments Duty on members' subscriptions is being demanded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of county and other cricket clubs; that many clubs depend for their existence on the subscriptions of those interested in the promotion of sport; and if he will take steps to see that, in the case of clubs where no private profit is sought or obtained, members' subscriptions shall be exempt from Entertainments Duty?

Captain KING: Entertainments Duty is chargeable under Section 1 (4) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, on such part of the membership subscriptions of any club as represents payment for the right of admission to entertainments in respect of which Entertainments Duty is payable. Having regard to the scheme of the Entertainments Duty, my right hon. Friend is unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS,

Lieut.-Colonel STEPHENSON: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, having regard to the fact that His Majesty's Government has made arrangements for the repayment to the United States of America of the sums borrowed during the War on behalf of our Allies, France and Italy, it is proposed to complete the transaction by calling upon the French and Italian Governments to repay their borrowings from us by means of a similar arrangement?

Captain KING: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Linfield) on the 15th February.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the Government see fit to make a definite statement as to whether these sums were borrowed on behalf of the Allies or not?

Captain KING: The hon. Member wilt appreciate that I can add nothing to the statement of the Prime Minister.

BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).

Mr. ERSKINE: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to assist the payment of our debt to America, he will consider the desirability of building up in Canada a dollar reserve fund, and so not only encourage the development of that country's resources, but also with a view to annually supplying dollars for the interest on our debt comparatively free from exchange fluctuations?

Captain KING: In my right hon. Friend's opinion the only possible way of meeting our debt is to provide liquid resources in the United States. It would not be possible at the same time to use money to repay America and to develop Canada.

Mr. W. THORNE: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of accumulated interest to the debt this country owes to the United States of America; whether the accumulated interest has been added to the principal of the debt; and what is the total amount of indebtedness to America, including the interest?

Captain KING: The principal of the notes to be refunded was $4,074,818,358 and the accrued interest $629,836,107 making a total of $4,704,654,465. After deduction of our payments in October and November of $100,526,380, the total of the debt has been agreed at $4,604,128,085.

Mr. THORNE: In face of that very clear answer, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when giving a reply with regard to American debts, to supply the figures in pounds sterling, and not in dollars?

Captain KING: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. BARNES: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table for the information of the House the statistics presented by the British Debt Mission during his visit to the United States?

Captain Viscount CURZON: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be published as a White Paper all the statistics with regard to British finances which were supplied by him to the United States Government at Washington?

Captain KING: The statistics used were compiled from accounts already published in this country, and my right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to republish them.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. D. SOMERVILLE: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will compile figures showing what would be the cost of the national revenue of full old age pensions for all people over 70 years of age whose maximum means are not greater than 20s. a week, so as to afford Members assistance in deciding whether the country can support this maximum of help to the poorer old age pensioners?

Captain KING: Simply to provide all pensioners whose means do not exceed 20s. a week with a pension of 10s. would involve an increased annual cost of about £700,000; but it would not be practicable to give the possessor of means of 20s. a pension of 10s. while leaving the possessor of means of 20s. 1d. without any pension. A necessary corollary would, therefore, be a sliding scale of pension for persons with means between 20s. and 30s. a week. No data exist for an exact calculation of the cost, but it would certainly be a very large sum.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the increased cost to the Exchequer if old age pensions were granted to all those who were not liable to Income Tax?

Captain KING: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on the 28th November, the Committee of 1919 estimated the additional cost for the United Kingdom of the adoption of the Income Tax exemption limit at £14,500,000 per annum. The Committee also came to the conclusion that the adoption of this limit was impracticable.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are those figures correct to-day, because since the Committee sat, the old age pensions have been increased?

Captain KING: They are the latest figures I have with me.

SURPLUS GOVERNMENT LORRIES (DISPOSAL).

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many lorries have been disposed of to purchasers, other than the Slough company, since the agreement was made with that company in 1920; and what are the highest and lowest prices realized per lorry in these cases?

Captain KING: The preparation of the return required by my hon. and gallant Friend would involve an examination of the accounts for a period of nearly three years. I regret that, with the depleted staff available, it is not feasible to undertake this work.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to the prices at which these vehicles are being sold?

Captain KING: I think that is covered by the answer that it requires a great deal of research.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is it not a fact that many of these vehicles are being sold to companies of doubtful origin at giveaway prices of less than £100, while ordinary people cannot get them at all?

Captain KING: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put another question down.

CRIMINAL TRIALS (BRITISH WEST AFRICA).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 87.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that His Majesty's subjects in British West Africa are denied, in many cases, the right of trial by jury where criminal charges are involved, and that prisoners are tried by
assessors; whether the Criminal Appeal Act, 1908, applies to British West Africa; and whether he proposes to take immediate steps to place the inhabitants of this Colony on the same footing with respect to the criminal law as subjects in other parts of the British Empire?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The procedure for criminal trials varies in the different West African Colonies and Protectorates; in some cases there is a judge and jury, in others a judge assisted by assessors, in others a judge or judicial commissioner acting alone. The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, does not apply to any British West African Colony or Protectorate, but only to England and Wales. As regards the last part of the question, it is not clear which West African Colony is referred to, but it is not possible to introduce any greater uniformity than exists at present, as the conditions are so varied. May I remind the hon. Member that British West Africa includes primitive savage communities, native tribes, organised native States, Mahommedan emirates, and natives who have adopted European standards and modes of life, and that trial by jury would in most cases be quite inapplicable, and in others an unsatisfactory procedure.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: On Tuesdays, as we have questions to so many Departments, would it be possible for the questions to take turn about, so that questions relating to other Departments may be put directly to the Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER: The arrangement of questions does not rest with me. Will the hon. and gallant Member see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury?

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

WILLIAM EDWIN PEASE, Esquire, for the Borough of Darlington.

JAMES CHUTER EDE, Esquire, for the County of Surrey (Mitcham Division).

NOTICES OF MOTION.

CAPITALIST SYSTEM.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the failure of the capitalist system, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Snowden.]

POOR LAW REFORM.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the long-delayed reform of the Poor Law system, and to move a, Resolution.— [Major Kelley.]

CIVIL SERVICE.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the pay of certain entrants to the established Civil Service, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Groves.]

VACCINATION.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the serious dangers that may arise owing to the lax manner in which the Vaccination Acts are at present administered, and to move a Resolution.—[Dr. Watts.]

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (1921) AMENDMENT.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move,
That leave he given to introduce a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, in respect of agricultural produce.
My purpose is to call attention to the grave discontent which exists among the agricultural community. A Motion on the Paper, put down by an hon. Member who is an unimpeachable authority, draws attention to this. The heavy taxes, the heavy burden of railway rates, and the impossible conditions in which agriculture is supposed to carry on are well known to-day. As regards the safeguarding of industries, the position of the farmer, as I understand it, is best expressed in paragraph 7 of the pledge which the National Farmers' Union demanded from candidates for membership for this House:
I will support the rescinding of the Safeguarding of Industries Act unless equality of treatment is at once given to agricultural produce.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Protectionist!"] Hon. Members had better wait until I have
explained the Bill. The farmer says, and there is a great deal of sense and logic in the argument, "You wish to give protection under this Act, against foreign competition, to a number of small persistent, energetic, clamant industries, but nothing is done for me. Under Part I of the Act you profess to protect and safeguard key industries, and supplies on which the life of the nation depends, and small manufacturers of things like face powder can get protection, because they plead that they are supplying things on which the life of the nation depends, while nothing is done for me who produce the food of the nation." Judging from the membership of this House, I believe that a great many farmers are Free Traders. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are many hon. Members who sit here as Free Traders by the support of farmers. Of course, I am a Free Trader. I am, and always have been, opposed to any taxes on food. The voice of the Free Trader, in this House and in the last, has been the voice of one crying in the wilderness, but now he has got reinforcements. It must always be understood that Protection is not a general idea, but is regarded strictly as a personal relative matter. That is to say, it is no good telling A, who is a Tariff Reformer, that you are going to protect B. What A wants is protection for A. If he cannot have protection for A he will vote against protection for B. That is a fair description of the Tariff Reformer's position. Every Tariff Reformer is a Free Trader for his own raw material and a Tariff Reformer for his own finished product.
The Prime Minister, and the President of the Board of Agriculture, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it clear that in no circumstances did the Government intend to impose protective duties on foodstuff. The position of the farmer is this. "You say you will not help us, and therefore we do not think it is fair that you should help other people, and we will oppose the Safeguarding of Industries Act altogether." And so, instead of a few scattered consumers who could not concentrate their forces, and who suffer under the evils of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, we now have opposed to the Act one of the greatest, best organised, and most powerful interests of the country, the agricultural interest, which recognises that the Act is partial and unjust. With
the help of the agricultural interest we propose to repeal this Act. Who is going to oppose this Bill? On this side of the House sit many Free Traders. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is to the Government side that it will look for most of its supporters. The Bill is in response to the pledge given to the Farmers' Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By Members of this House. The pledge, for example, was given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. McNeill) and by the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson) who is in his place.

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: indicated dissent.

Captain BENN: I am informed by the Farmers' Union, but if they are in-accurate—

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: They are.

Captain BENN: The hon. Member for Henley (Captain Terrell) was generally sympathetic.

Captain TERRELL: I will make it perfectly clear.

4.0 P.M.

Captain BENN: The Home Secretary (Mr. Bridgeman) has also given the pledge, and it has been given by three score and ten Members on that side. That being the case, who is going to oppose it? I suppose that nobody is going to oppose it. If I am wrong any hon. Member under the Standing Orders of the House is at liberty to follow me in debate and make a brief statement and then divide the House. If I am right, I shall welcome it Of course, if hon. Members say "no" in the Debate, and do not follow that up with a speech and a Division, we shall know what

weight to attach to their attitude. My own belief is that everybody, even the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), who have been the great champions of this Act, feel that the time has passed when it can be anything more than a ridiculous excess on the Statute Book. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] So far as those hon. Members who are good enough to back this Bill and many other hon. Members are concerned, we regard this Act as a weak and deformed infant, and we believe the time has come to give it a timely and merciful release.

Bill ordered to be, brought in by Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Hope Simpson, Mr. Bonwick, and Mr. Foot.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, respect of agricultural produce," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings in Committee on Unemployment Insurance [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 157.

Division No. 22.]
AYES.
[4.3 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bell, Lieut.-Cot. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bruton, Sir James


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buckingham, Sir H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Benu, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drane)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Apsley, Lord
Berry, Sir George
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Batterton, Henry S.
Barney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Butcher, Sir John George


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Blundell, F. N.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Button, H. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain W.
Cadogan, Major Edward


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chaster, City)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Barnston, Major Harry
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Mewbury)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Becker, Harry
Bruford, R,
Chapman, Sir S.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Clarry, Reginald George
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, E. G.


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hood, Sir Joseph
Privett, F. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, John W. W.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Raine, W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Houfton, John Plowright
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cope, Major William
Hughes, Collingwood
Remnant, Sir James


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Rentoul, G. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry page
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sandon, Lord


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ednam, Viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lorden, John William
Singleton, J. E.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lougher, L.
Skelton, A. N.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lumley, L. R.
Sparkes, H. W.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanley, Lord


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Lard C. Crichton-


Furness, G. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sutcliffe, T.


Gates, Percy
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Morden, Col. W, Grant
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Murchison, C. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wallace, Captain E.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nail, Major Joseph
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nesbitt, J. C.
Waring, Major Walter


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Halstead, Major D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Whitla, Sir William


Harrison, F. C.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Harvey, Major S. E.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Winterton, Earl


Hawke, John Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wise, Frederick


Kay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Paget, T. G.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Pease, William Edwin
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, De Fonbianque
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Peto, Basil E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Philipson, H. H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pielou, D. P.
Gibbs.


NOES.


Adams, D.
Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Buchanan, G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Buckle, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Bonwick, A.
Burgess, S.


Attlee, C. R.
Briant, Frank
Burnle, Major J. (Bootie)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Broad, F. A.
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)


Barnes, A.
Brotherton, J.
Cairns, John




Chapple, W. A.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scrymgeour, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Sexton, James


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Collison, Levi
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Darbishire, C. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Simpson, J. Hope


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson, John James
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Snowden, Philip


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lee, F.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Duncan, C.
Loes-Smith, H. B (Keighley)
Stephen, Campbell


Ede, J. C.
Linfield, F. C.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edmonds, G.
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, J.


Edwards, C. (Monrnouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby-)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Falconer, J.
M'Entee, V. L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Foot, Isaac
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thornton, M.


Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Tillett, Benjamin


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Millar, J. D.
Trevclyan, C. P.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morel, E. D.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Warne, G. H.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Oswald
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Groves, T.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Webb, Sidney


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Nichol, Robert
Weir, L. M.


Hall, F, (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wheatley, J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hancock, John George
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Harbord, Arthur
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Wignall, James


Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Harris, Percy A.
Phillipps, Vivian
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atfercliffe)


Herriotts, J.
Fringle, W. M. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hinds, John
Richards, R.
Wintringham, Margaret


Hirst, G, H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hogge, James Myles
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)



Irving, Dan
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Morgan


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Royce, William Stapleton
Jones.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Saklatvala, S.



Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industires Act, 1921, in respect of agricultural produce," put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Mr. Balfour, Mr. Barker, Sir George Berry, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Button, Major Cadogan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Clayton, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Duncan, Colonel Du Pre, Sir Bertram Falle, Sir Henry Foreman, Mr. Furness, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt, Major Lloyd George, Mr. Gosling, Sir Edward Grigg, Colonel Guest, Mr. Harbord, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Hilder, Mr. Hopkinson, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Jephcott, Captain Kennedy, Sir John Leigh, Mr. Linfield, Captain Moreing, Mr. Nesbitt, Sir Percy Newson, Brigadier-General Nicholson, Mr. Owen Parker, Mr. Perring, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Shinwell, Dr. Simms,' Mr.
Herbert Spencer, Hear-Admiral Sueter, Mr. Tout, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Graham White, Sir William Whitla, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Major Sir Samuel Hill-Wood.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Barnes, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Dunnico, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Major Molloy, Sir Norman Rae, Mr. Riley, Sir Sydney Russell-Wells, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Dr. Watts.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the-Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Mr. A clams, Mr. Albert Alexander, Lieut.- Colonel Archer-Shee, Mr. Banks, Mr. Batey. Lieut.-Colonel Bell, Sir Thomas Bennett, Major Birchall, Sir William
Bird, Sir Henry Buckingham, Mr. Cairns, Lieut.-Colonel Campion, Sir Charles Cayzer, Dr. Chapple, Lieut.-Colonel Coates, Sir Philip Dawson, Major Despencer-Robertson, Major Dudgeon, Mr. Gavan-Duffy, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Flanagan, Captain Foxcroft, Mr. Garland, Mr. Harold Gray, Mr. Greenall, Mr. William Greenwood, Mr. Hartshorn, Major Harvey, Mr. Herriotts, Mr. Hopkins, Captain Hudson, Sir Stanley Johnson, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Frank Lee, Mr. Lowth, Major Malone, Lieut.-Colonel Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Grant Morden, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Mosley, Mr. John Murray, Sir Charles Oman, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Rankin, Sir Beddoe Rees, Mr. Hope Simpson, Brigadier-General Spears, Mr. Thornton, Mrs. Wintringham, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee C as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported From the Committee; That they had added the following Eleven Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Matrimonial Causes (England and Wales) Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Bridgetnan, Major Brown, Major Entwistle, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Maddocks, Mr. Paling, Mr. Rawlinson, and Mr. Shakespeare.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Eleven Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Legitimacy Bill): Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Betterton, Captain Bowyer, Captain Viscount Curzon, Major Entwistle, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Maddocks, Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Turner, Mr. Warne, and Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SECURITY AND REPARATIONS.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move
That this House, believing that the peoples of Europe wish to maintain peace and to pursue a policy which will secure it, agrees to invite in the first instance the Chambers of France and Belgium each to appoint a representative committee from all political sections, in order to exchange information and views with a similar committee appointed by this House regarding the occupation of the Ruhr in relation to the problems of security and reparations.
It is quite unnecessary far me even to entertain the idea of an apology when I rise this afternoon to ask the House, for the third time this Session, to consider foreign affairs. I know I am asking hon. Members to consider a somewhat novel preposition. On the first occasion, the Labour party moved an Amendment to the Address, which raised the more fundamental issues of the present relations between France and Germany. We knew perfectly well that the proposals we then made had very little connection with the immediate problems we had to solve. As a matter of fact, one had so much sympathy with what the Prime Minister said, namely, that the situation for the moment could not profitably be interfered with, that we were much more concerned with fundamental issues than with proposals for the immediate settlement of the problem. On the second occasion, my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches raised a proposal that the League of Nations should be brought into this dispute. We know again perfectly well that until there is a change in public opinion, until in this nation or in that there is a recognition of the real facts of the situation, no mere suggestion of arbitration or conciliation is going to be of very great immediate use. To-day I raise another aspect. of this problem. I do it because my colleagues and myself are absolutely convinced that until public opinion has been influenced, the public opinion of France, the public opinion of Germany, the public opinion of Belgium and public opinion here, Governmental interference, apart from a public backing, is going to be of very doubtful benefit.
What has happened since we debated this question before? Every day brings
new issues. Are affairs improving or are they worsening? I do not believe there is an hon. Member of this House who would get up and say that affairs are improving. Take Germany, for instance. What has happened in Germany as the result of recent French action? First of all reaction, militarist reaction: a heart-felt and silent conviction that when the opportunity comes revenge is to be had, has sunk further and further into the hearts of the Germans. So far from bringing security here the action that has been taken has tended to bring insecurity, not only when Germany revives, but for years and years and years, and even for generations. There is no nation on the face of the earth that is in a better position to understand the psychology of revenge than the French nation itself, if it will only look into its own history and its own heart. The second thing is this: Germany is less able to-day to pay the reparation that France went into the Ruhr five or six weeks ago in order to find. Someone has talked about searching pockets with bayonets. When we begin to search pockets in that way the result is that we knock holes in the pockets, and the money that lies there is rather apt to slip out and disappear altogether. That is what France is finding now.
Supposing a settlement was come to, supposing that this afternoon it was stated in the newspapers that Germany had given in, that Germany had held up her hands and had said to France, "We can offer no more resistance, we are beaten, we bow again our heads to the dust. What do you want us to do? What conditions do you impose upon us?" Suppose that that happened this afternoon. Germany is in a less fit position to carry out any of those obligations than she was six weeks ago, when the adventure started. Take France. What is the position in France? I think I am right when I say that a country which starts upon an adventure, the end of which it has not clearly defined, the road to success in which it has not clearly mapped out, nor the circumstances under which it is to be justified to itself and the world—the nation that starts upon an adventure not sufficiently well defined to meet those three great tests is a nation which is in very grave danger of serious disaster.
What has happened in France? France started her march upon the Ruhr, for
what? The Prime Minister on various occasions has referred to it. He has told us that France—I paraphrase his words, and I hope I am doing him no injustice—in search of reparation used reparation not exactly for the purpose that it actually had in its heart, and that there were other aims and other purposes. To-day France goes on. France occupies this district; it is ineffective. France occupies the next district; it is ineffective. France imposes the condition of a fiscal tariff; it is ineffective. It widens, widens, widens, until to-day France finds itself in the position of a country that has started upon a quest which it cannot define, has taken a journey which it cannot end, is pursuing something which is very elusive, and finds there is very little opportunity of ever being able definitely to seize it. I say that this fatal quest is one of the greatest calamities that any Government could allow to overshadow the country for which it is responsible. A very distinguished member of the French Chamber of Deputies, M. Leon Blum, writing three days ago in the French Press, used these words:
After two months not a single car has been loading coal for France. Thus the French steel industry did not have one-third of its normal ration of coal last month. The blast furnaces are going cold and the franc is falling. England and America will soon begin pressing us for money, and every day our debt to them grows bigger by some hundreds of millions of francs. Bread, sugar, cotton and woollens are going up in price. We have contracted new loans, and are promised new taxes. While waiting for Poinear6 to make Germany pay France is paying.
That is the opinion of a distinguished member of the French Chamber of Deputies. Therefore, as the days and weeks have gone, France, instead of coming nearer to her object, finds her object becoming more and more distant and finds the end of her journey more and more problematical. In the meantime she has to pay heavily for her venture. The second thing that has happened to France is of even greater importance. I hope that hon. Members are not blind to the change in policy that is taking place. That is the most serious thing of all. France begins with nothing approaching a quarrel; we begin with hesitation, but with a very strong and most sincere desire to keep the Entente going—a sort of temporary tiff between permanent friends. That is the beginning.
The drift goes on; the breach widens; one or two little difficulties that the Prime Minister had to deal with in Paris on 3rd January become multiplied; every day multiplies them. At last one fine morning we find that the whole of the relations threaten fundamentally to fall down. We begin to be told that France is negotiating a new Europeanbloc, we not being in it. Moreover it goes further. We are told that when France makes peace with Germany she is going to do it separately; she is going to present us with afait accompli, and we arc going to accept it or we are going to reject it just as it suits ourselves, but the thing is to be settled before we know even the terms of the settlement. That is the drift.
That is not all. What is now happening, I am perfectly certain, was not a definitely conceived and determined design on the part of France. France in her own interests is reopening the questions closed at Paris when the Treaty of Versailles was written and signed, and is herself rewriting the Treaty of Versailles without any consultation with her late Allies, either ourselves or the Americans. The frame of mind that I detest most of all is the frame of mind of the pessimist. When we see, not by the evil designs of France—I do not believe that for a moment—but by the inevitable consequence of events one thing following another, one thing leading to another, the effect becoming cause, cause becoming effect, then surely it is time for us to make a survey, not of an academic kind, a survey which ends not merely in a gesture of goodwill or a gesture of pious aspiration that we should refer it to the League of Nations, but it behoves us to make a survey for the purpose of seeing whether we cannot apply our wills to the problem, and solve it by stages, and not in a miraculous way by one act, because that can never possibly be done.
Take our own position in all these matters. Curiously enough, the one country that seems to be forgotten by so many of our people to-day is our own country. We have all sorts of sentiment about this country and that country, but who is facing the position that this country is getting into in relation to any other? Who? I refer to the political relations, the military relations. It is all very well for hon. Members—I think they are mostly on the other side—to assume that we are out of the picture for a
moment, that we are in the stalls or in the pit or in the gallery while the great European play—I hope it is not to be a tragedy, though it looks very much like it—is being played on the stage. That is an absurd position. We are on the stage, and we cannot get off the stage.
What have we found over and over again? We have never found some creation of the devil appear in human form and declare a war. That is not how things are done. We find, we have always found, and we will find again that there will be a nice gentle little trickle of events, and we shall launch ourselves on it; we will be quiescent and we will go down, and the trickle will get bigger and the current will get stronger, and we will go on and go on until at last we are in the rapids, and once we are in the rapids then our sentiments and our ideas and our intentions may be what we like, but over the waterfall we will go, whether we wish it or not.
The thing which is happening to-day is the beginning of a new series of chapters which may culminate in war unless we are very careful. Our position to-day is this. The military balance in Europe is changing; the political balance in Europe is changing, and at the moment, so far as my correspondence goes, and so far as I can read the situation, we are rather out of it. We have very little influence. Nobody is looking to us for a lead and, as a matter of fact, we are in a position which would enable us to give a moral lead to Europe if we only had the courage to lay down our position and stand by our position through a few months, probably of misunderstanding. Look at our position on the Reparation Commission. We are out-voted every time. The Reparation Commission is making itself responsible for things that, as we all know, we refuse to make ourselves responsible for, yet our representative sits there and never votes. Is that a position for a country like this to occupy? Take the Rhineland Commission. Exactly the same thing is happening there. Even worse is going on there, because the Rhineland Commission, unlike the Reparation Commission, may at any moment become a political instrument. Perhaps the language I have just used is not quite accurate, because when you are dealing with economics it is very
easy to translate economic into political events, but I mean that the Rhineland Commission is different, because where you get a majority under the domination of country A or country B or country C, if there is a division of opinion on political matters, or on military matters, or on politico-military matters, and one important Power like ourselves instructs its representative on the Rhineland Commission to take no part in the business of the Commission, then that Commission can be used in the occupied district—as in the Ruhr now—for political purposes. That, as a matter of fact, is happening. The Commission is extending its sphere of work. It is going outside its authority under the Versailles Treaty, and is becoming a political instrument in carrying on the designs that are being advanced in the Ruhr area at the present time. Yet, whether it is doing its legitimate or its illegitimate work, our country takes no position on it at all, except that of instructing Lord Kilmarnock to sit quiet, hold his tongue, and never use his vote.
I venture to say that cannot go on much longer. It is quite impossible that such a situation could be maintained much longer. I would like to press for a statement in respect of what Germany is prepared to accept as her obligations. We should do our best to get her to speak. We were told, and I believe it is perfectly right, that the terms were in Paris on the 3rd January, and the agent was there and they were going to be produced, but owing to certain circumstances they were not produced, and the agent went home, and to this moment we do not know what Germany was prepared to accept as what she considered and what she would define as reasonable obligations in view of the burdens imposed for reparation purposes. Surely, if I may allow my mind to wander in that direction, the very first move in the game is to get Germany to speak, and no country was in a better position than ours to do that. but we allowed events to master us instead of mastering events. What is the use of a great body of men like this what is the use of a, House of Commons, of a Parliament elected to represent the people of this country, if we are to be controlled like puppets by events? Have we no policy? Have we no conception of our function in Europe? Have we no idea of pursuing a straight policy, day by day
and week by week, in such a way as to disarm opposition that is merely factious? Have we no conception as to how that is to be done? I do net believe for a single moment that we are in that position. I believe, with a little courage, this country could place itself right at the head of those moral forces which must come into the forefront. in Europe, if European problems are to be solved. When one looks around about trying to find somebody who is doing that one's best patriotism feels outraged by our own silence and our own quiescence.
At the moment, remember, it is not the history of to-day or to-morrow which is being written, but the history of the next 50 years. You begin now, you choose a certain path now, you start a new European diplomacy now with certain great presumptions in its mind as to certain merits of certain plans of action. Ten years from now you cannot undo that. You still remain the mere puppets of events, and events are going to write the issues of your history. To-day you find a German Government saying "We cannot speak. We want to speak, but if we do so France will interpret our words as weakness." We find that Government saying, "Cannot somebody, cannot something make it easy for us to speak "—because apparently until some Moses comes and touches the rock with his rod the water cannot gush out. What impotence? As to France, we are told the French Government cannot change because the opinion of the French Chamber will not allow it, and the French Chamber is afraid to allow it because French public opinion is said not to allow them. Everybody who follows the French Press day by day knows that French public opinion at the present moment is the Frankenstein which has been raised by French Governments since 1918. People cannot play with devilry, and find that they are not raising devils in the path to make it impossible for them to get back to a proper course of action. As to our own Government, we have been told again and again that we cannot move lest our action might be misinterpreted by, and be inconvenient to, our own Allies, yet in Germany, in France, and here public opinion is apprehensive. Nobody likes the situation. I was talking the other clay to a very distinguished French publicist who supports M. Poincaré in everything he has done,
and when one talks to these men one finds that away hack in their minds there is a great reserve. They are doubtful about the result, doubtful whether even an apparent success will ensure that a real success will follow. May I quote a line of Burns, assuming for a moment the prerogative of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood). I should say to the reasonable French people that success in the Ruhr is somewhat like pleasure—
You seize the flower; its bloom is shed.
You get your success, but the moment you have it, it withers in your hand. It is something that turns to nothing more than dust and ashes and futility. There i3 the situation—paralysis, evil, and drift with the Governments—the German, the French, tile Belgian and our own—standing by; public opinion behind us uncertain, unhappy, anxious to get conference, anxious to understand each other, but no order, no means of conference, of getting the public to lay their heads together in order to exchange opinion and find out exactly each what the other is thinking. That is the tragic situation in which we find ourselves at the present moment. In moving this Resolution I am bearing in mind that this House is the custodian of opinion. For the form of the Resolution I care nothing. I understand that some hon. Members object, to this phrase and that phrase in it. So far as I am concerned, I care for none of the phrases. The only thing I am considering is the substance. I have suggested the Chambers of Belgium and France to begin with because I think it is far more advisable that those of us who have been operating together should have the first conference together. As soon as that is held I hope we may have an opportunity of consulting the German Reichstag as well. I have not put that in the Resolution because I wanted to take the first step as a separate and distinct step and when that is done and if that is successful then we can go further.
I admit that when you come to the substance of the Resolution the structure is a very novel one and hon. Members perhaps smile at it. It is very novel to us, but not novel to the other two Chambers mentioned in the Resolution. One of my hon. Friends and myself have both been before such Committees of
foreign Chambers. America has got its Committee on Public Relations—the Senate Committee. A good many years ago I had the great honour of being asked by that Committee to go and talk over certain matters relating to the English public opinion, and an hon. Friend who sits behind me has been asked by either the French Senate or the French Chamber of Deputies Committee on Foreign Relations to go and talk to them about Balkan opinion. France has got a Committee—exactly the Committee that I suggest 'we should elect by this Resolution. The Belgian Senate has got a similar Committee. If this Committee was elected to-day, or was to be elected at once, I do not suggest, so far as we are concerned, that it should be a permanent one. I am not at all sure, however, that if this House is going to do its duty in keeping in touch with Continental affairs as it ought to, that it would not be very well advised as a separate Power, to appoint a Foreign Affairs Committee upon which you could have represented on a proportional representation basis all the groups and sections in this House. But I am not asking that to-day. I simply say, remembering the case I have put up so far, remembering the circumstances we have to face, that it would he a good thing—I believe it would be a welcome thing, as I shall show in a minute—if we were to appoint a Committee so representative simply for the specific purpose of exchanging views with France and Belgium, to see how far public opinion in the various countries does disagree, and how far all this squabbling and disagreement between the Governments and the Administrations are justified by public opinion. Moreover, I find that practically every letter one gets from members of Chambers and Parliaments in Europe, deplores exactly what I have been trying to deplore in this House. I have, for instance, a letter in my hand, which I am able to quote, written by M. Vandervelde, who was a Belgian Minister during the War. M. Vandervelde says, on behalf of the party which he represents, the second party in the Belgian Chamber:
We authorise you to state, in the course of the Debate which is to take place on 6th March in the House of Commons, that we fully and cordially approve the initiative
taken by you, in the interests of peace and with a view to assuring the solution of the problem of reparations and security.
The French, I am sorry to say, are a much weaker party. The Belgian Labour party is a very important party, but the French, owing mainly, I think, to those unfortunate squabbles that Moscow has been so anxious to spread in every Parliamentary country in Europe—[An HON. MEMBER: "United front; all together!"] My united front is not in words. The French party, I regret, is very much weaker. Still, there they are, and if hon. Members will allow me, I should like to quote a letter which their leader has written on the same subject. He says:
It is an understood thing that we (the party) are ready to do all in our power to ensure its success.
That is the success of the Motion which I am now moving.
Without building too many hopes —
I do not want to leave this House in any misunderstanding. This is a qualifying sentence, but still I think we ought to be realistic in our ideas at the same time as we are asking Governments to be realistic in theirs—
Without building too many hopes on the positive results of a conference to which the delegates of the French Chamber will for the most part bring a prejudiced outlook difficult to overcome, we think that some of them will receive useful information and enlightenment from such an interview. And more especially we are of the opinion that the very announcement of a meeting such as you propose will have everywhere—and especially in Germany and France—a calming and pacifying moral effect, which it would be wrong for us to neglect.
I do not think this is the place for me to go into the details of what we might discuss. The two general subjects, of course, are those placed at the head of my Motion. The two things that arc going to wreck Europe, if Europe is wrecked, are these—. France's fears that she is not secure secondly, an attempt to run after reparations that in actual economic fact must be mere will-o'-the-wisps. Those are the two problems that Europe has got to face, and upon those two problems public opinion is very much divided in the three Allied countries.
As far as I am concerned, I would refer France's security to an all-inclusive League of Nations, and I should be willing to give a pledge, so far as a pledge could be given—and certainly it would be given
without any reserve on my own part—that when the League of Nations explored the problem of French security, out and in, back and forth, up and down, until the whole of the nature of the problem was understood, and then came to a decision as to how France could best be secured, I should be willing to say, I will accept in substance such a report and such a recommendation from the League of Nations. On the question of reparations, the great point is an immediate payment. France wants an immediate payment. I think the important thing there is an international loan at the same time as a definite settlement is made regarding the amount of Germany's responsibilities. I think that is a good enough opening, a good enough beginning, for such conversations. I want to emphasise, before I sit down, that I have no intention—my Resolution has no intention—of making these Committees negotiating Committees. Perhaps, in this so-called business age, we are inclined to place too little importance upon a general, indefinite goodwill between peoples. If we could only get the right attitude of mind, I would not be very anxious to press out for definite sort of arrangements. Of this I am perfectly certain, that your wisest. and your 'cutest diplomatists can devise the best ways of doing things, but if there is not goodwill behind them, your wisest and your best ways will not be carried out.
My last point—and I come back to it again and again—is this, is the great dominant factor of the events of to-day. What is happening now is not for this week, not for next week, not for this year or next year; what is happening now is a series of events that are going to fructify, and fructify, and fructify, until at last the whole course of our history, more particularly the history of our international relations, for the next 50 or 70 years is going to be determined by what happens within the next few weeks. It is not a question of France and Germany, but a question of Europe. In fact, it is not very difficult to see that America, too, has got to come in, so that it becomes really a question of the world. A month or two ago everybody was rather chary and unwilling to admit that we Mere going back again to worship in the Temple of Mars. We had said so often, "The War
is going to end all wars, "we bad said so often, "The victory of the Allies is not going to be used merely for the protection of the Allies, but is going to be used as the foundation of peace," that we were rather shame-faced when we had to say, "Let us prepare for the next war." We are getting less shame-faced now—less shame-faced. Those dust-covered altars of the Temple of Mars are being put into better order and given a more respectable appearance, and we are just going away back to exactly the frame of mind we were in before 1900, when we started to explore the world for alliances in order to establish a balance of power and get security by armed force.
Moreover, the French are saying things of us, and we are saying things of them— the fault is on both sides—they are thinking things of us, and we are thinking things of them, that are bound to end in hostile organisation, either armies, submarines, air services, alliances,blocs, balances of power—I do not care how. They can show themselves in thousands of ways, but the fact is this, that it is a hostile organisation growing steadily in front of us, and I want to stop it. Surely it is our duty to see that the dragon teeth of words and thoughts that are now being sown, and that are bound to give us a harvest of armed men, shall be raked up, if we possibly can rake them up and prevent them yielding any harvest at all. Yet, there we are. The baffling and the maddening thought is this, that we are paralysed—Governments will not act—no action is being taken, except of this indefinite, vague kind, going out into the unknown and the unexplored—public opinion left to the mercies of those artful people who can play upon it, rouse its prejudices and its fears, put it into a position that will respond later on to a more hearty and definite call—it is being left, neglected, by us.
5.0 P.M.
Really, I do not think it is the duty of Parliament to allow it. I want to encroach in nothing upon the Executive, I want to ask nothing of the nature of a usurpation of the Executive power, but at the same time I want the Executive not to encroach upon the prerogative of Parliament. We have got our functions; they have theirs. Our function is not to negotiate, our function is not to begin the negotiations, but our function is to see to
it that the public opinion with which we deal is an enlightened public opinion. Can hon. Members imagine anything more fatal to constitutional government than a Parliament that sits quietly by when so many events, pregnant with fate, are taking place, doing nothing to guide them and mould them in a moral and wise direction? We have come here, at any rate some of us have come here, to try and make this House of Commons an institution of power, of respect, and of authority. If that cannot be done, what happens? The country is deprived at once of the only means by which it can go from one stage to another of well considered organic experiment and organic change. Here is the test. Here is the chance. Not with more sincerity than the Government—I do not claim that—but with more freedom than the Government, we can exchange our views with France and Germany. We can stand as a Parliament consulting French opinion, Belgian opinion, ultimately German opinion, and deal with that important thing the foundation of all wise international action namely, international good feeling. That is our function. That is our field of action, and I move this Resolution, as I believe that the. time has come for Parliament, working in the field of public opinion, to do its duty to Europe, and only as far as it does its duty to Europe, will Europe have any guarantee that Peace is going to be secured for the next generation.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The House has listened to an extremely interesting speech making a very interesting proposal, and with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said I imagine the great, majority of the House will be in agreement. His Motion consists of two parts. It says, in effect, that the peoples of the world want peace, as to which there is no question at all, and that the most important step that could be taken towards securing that peace would be, the settlement of these great questions of reparations and security. I shall come back to the substantial proposition in a moment. The hon. Gentleman made some observations with which I find myself entirely in agreement. They were of a general character, but I believe they were profoundly true. He said that things were going from had to worse. As far as
an outsider can judge, I agree. He said the position is getting more serious. He said that we were now taking, or not taking, action which might decide the future for 50 years. I think it was a very conservative and moderate statement. I am not sure it might not be said about almost everything, but still it is, in a popular sense, particularly true of great events rather than of small ones. That leads up to this practical proposal. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that his practical proposal is rather insufficient for dealing with so grave a situation.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Hear, hear!

Lord R. CECIL: I am glad to secure that approval.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Extremes meet.

Lord R. CECIL: Let me ask the House to examine for a moment what is practically the suggestion. I am not dealing with the wording. I quite agree that this is much too serious a case to deal in mere verbal criticism. But take the substance. He proposes that we should appoint an official Parliamentary Committee to represent the House of Commons, and I suppose the whole Parliamentary forum. I am not sure whether or not he would have a representative from the other House. This Committee is to go over to meet other equally official committees—indeed, as I understood him, the existing Foreign Affairs Committees of the Belgian and French Parliaments. They are to meet and to discuss foreign affairs generally, and reparations and security in particular. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that that would be a convenient course to the other channels of communication which exist between the countries? He said he felt the difficulty, because one might accuse the hon. Gentleman of want of acuteness of mind when he said they mast not negotiate they must not interfere with the Foreign Office and other diplomatic channels. How is it possible for them not Lo do so? You have an official committees representing Parliament, meeting other official committees representing the other Parliaments. How are they to discuss without negotiating? Why, their very discussions are negotiations, and, not only so, but how is the Government to go on negotiating with the other
Governments while this unofficial Government is to be negotiating at the same time? It is an organ of Government, because it is an organ of Parliament, which is the supreme authority. I cannot see how a proposal of that kind would practically work. The "hon. Gentleman was rather in favour of the permanent appointment of a Foreign Affairs Committee of this House. I quite agree this is not the time to discuss that, but it shows the kind of trend in his mind. I beg him to consider most carefully the working of other foreign affairs committees in other parts. I believe profoundly, from all I have been told by those most familiar with their working, that their working is disastrous, that they have produced exactly the evils I have tried to indicate to the House. They have produced a kind of secondary government, and the diplomatic and Foreign Office officials do not know from hour to hour to which of the two authorities they are really to bear allegiance. I am convinced that this proposal would not be successful. But there is a much more serious objection to it, in my view. How would this appear if it were passed? The hon. Gentleman has a very qualified approval, I imagine, from a member of the Socialist party in the French Chamber. He did not give the name, but I think he said he was the leader.

Mr. MacDONALD: Yes—M. Blum.

Lord R. CECIL: As the hon. Member knows, at present that party commands a very small number of votes, indeed, in the French Chamber—I think about 40. Apart from that, how would it look to the majority of that Chamber if this Parliament, with the approval of the Government and the official side of this Parliament, appointed a committee to negotiate—because that is the way they would look at it; they would not accept the hon. Member's limitation—with other Governments, I will not say behind the backs, but independent of, and displacing, the Government for the day? I am convinced that the plan of appealing to popular opinion, to the people, to the Chamber over the heads of the Government which represent them, is a device which never succeeds. It is a very old device. Hon. Members will remember that it was the device employed by Rabshakeh when he was besieging Jerusalem, and he appealed to the people on the walls against the
Ministers, and the only result was to consolidate the whole of the Jews behind their leaders. That plan has been tried over and over again, generally by revolutionary Governments, and never with success. The last occasion on which it was tried was when President Wilson, in the Paris Conference, appealed to the Italian people ever the heads of the Italian Government, and we know with what result. It produced a most dreadful explosion in Italy, broke up the Conference for the time being, consolidated the whole people of Italy behind the policy of the Government—the policy, of which personally I did not approve, of Fiume, and, in the end, the Powers had, in effect, to give in to the proposal which they had been fighting up to that time. If such an appeal over the heads of a Government could ever have been made, it could have been made by President Wilson, who had been, within three months, received with unbounded enthusiasm in Italy, and was regarded as almost. a semi-divine person at that time. I am convinced that this plan would not succeed. I do agree most heartily, as everybody does, as to the seriousness of the crisis, and I am quite sure that if they arc as anxious as I am, and everybody else is, to find some solution, if it can he found before it is too late, do let me ask them to consider whether a proposal of this kind, if it were adopted, would really make for a conclusion. Would it not, in effect, merely postpone action, make action more difficult, and probably embitter the relations between all the countries concerned?
I will turn for a moment to the main proposition of the hon. Gentleman. We must settle these questions of reparations and security. We cannot settle one without the other; the two hang together. I noticed in the last Debate hon. Members attacked the French point of 'view that they did not want reparations setting Germany on its feet again unless they had security. It is not unreasonable from the French point of view. They do not want to see a powerful Germany next door, naturally, unless they are given some security against invasion, and I do not blame them myself. To solve this problem, you have to tackle security as well as reparations, and that is why I say, as strongly as ever I can, there is only one international body that can settle it, and that is the League of Nations. I agree with the hon. Gentle-
man, if he will allow me to say so, that in this matter we want public opinion; we want the impalpable forces behind us even more than Governmental action. But what instrument is there, or could be brought into existence, comparable to the League for the purpose of exciting that public opinion? You get there the representatives, not of the countries concerned, but the countries of the whole world. It is a far superior instrument for concentrating and enforcing public opinion, as I have always advocated. I do not withdraw or retreat from one single word I said in the previous Debate. I am more convinced that the line I took was absolutely right. It is essential that the League should do it, and the League would do it. But for the House of Commons to try to take it out of the hands of the Government of the day is unconstitutional and altogether unworkable.
In connection with this question of security, there was one passage in the hon. Gentleman's speech for which I wish to express my warmest gratitude and greatest pleasure, when he said that, for his part, he would be prepared to accept any scheme of security worked out by the League of Nations which would satisfy French opinion. I do not wish to press it further than he pressed it. I do not wish to stretch the meaning an inch beyond what his words ought to bear. I should be very grateful to the Government if they could say something to the same effect; if they were prepared to sat, "We have looked into the proposals for security which are now being considered by the League, and, without pledging ourselves to every word of them, without, accepting every word of them, yet we do recognise that they are proceeding on sound lines. We do believe security for the world must be a security administered by, and created by, the League of Nations, and we are content that in that security, and as part of it, special consideration should be given to those countries that are in a position of particular danger." Personally, I think it would be of great value, if my right hon. Friend would allow me to say so, to the international situation if a statement of that kind, if not to-night, yet in the near future, could be made by the British Government. I am satisfied that the real difficulty, much more than reparation, is security, and until you have, somehow or
another, an appeasement. of French feeling on that point you will never get them to look upon this question of reparation from the central point from which we start, namely, that we are satisfied that Germany must be restored as one of the elements of the commercial and economic community of Europe.
I am going to address one or two other observations, if I may, to my right hon. Friend. I agree with the Mover of the Resolution that there is great danger lest. we should drift upon the water. There is, I believe, always the greatest danger in international relations arising from misunderstanding for want of clearness of expression. I do not ask my right hon. Friend to make any statement in detail as to what the Government intend to do in this or that crisis. I do, however, ask them, very respectfully, if they cannot give this House some assurance that they do know exactly what they will do as these crises arise, that they have envisaged and considered the matter, that they know exactly where they are and that they will tell—have told—the Powers most intimately concerned what is their policy, what they intend to do and what they intend to do in giving effect to it.. I will illustrate what I mean. Yesterday there were rumours, about which a question was addressed to the Government, from the other side of the House, to the effect that the Germans had broken off relations with the French. That would be a very serious event if it should happen. It would raise a very serious question as to whether it was possible for us to ignore the provision to appeal to the League of Nations under Article 17. The question had arisen whether it was not essential that the matter should then and there be brought before the organ of the League. That is one event.
There may be at any moment a great enlargement of the territory occupied by the French troops. There may be—I hope earnestly there will not be—but there may be serious fighting and great disasters of that kind, and there is the contingency freely talked of in the Paris Press of separate negotiations between Germany and France and Belgium, and a separate peace, modifying the Treaty of Versailles and making fresh provisions as to the government of the Sarre, and a number of other things.
Irresponsible foreign writers in the Press say that this country is not to be consulted at all, but I can scarcely believe that any responsible statesman in France contemplates any action of that kind, which would evidently be of the most unfriendly description. I have no doubt that this has been considered, and earnestly considered, by my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt that the Government have given it their closest attention. I do not know whether it is possible for him to say, but if they can say they had considered it, and know the action that they intend to take, and that they had. communicated their views to France and to Germany—for it is just as important for Germany to know where we stand as France—I confess I would feel, personally, considerably relieved, and so, I believe, would the whole of the House.
Let me just give one other instance. On 10th April the Council of the League is going to meet. Is it possible for the Council to meet when these events are going on and do nothing? That seems to me very difficult indeed. I myself should regard it almost—I will not say as fatal—but very difficult to defend if such an event happened. All these things have to be considered and decided upon, and above all I do venture to press this—and l am sure my right hon. Friend will understand me it is in no spirit of hostility—1 do feel the danger—I do ask him to make it clear to other Governments where the Government stands, and exactly what they mean to do in this kind of situation. I am satisfied that the danger of misunderstanding is the great danger against which all diplomatists ought to wage war. I know how difficult it is to believe in unpalatable truths, but if you want a foreign Government to understand that there is a point beyond which you really cannot go, and after which you really have to reconsider your position entirely, you must say so in the plainest possible language.
I myself never joined in many of the carping criticisms against the pre-War Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in respect to his negotiations before the War. Looking back and judging of events, if I had to make that criticism now, I should say they said the right things to Germany, but they did not say
them clearly and drive them into their minds so that the Germans would believe what was said against the whole of the tendency which they would naturally Lave. I am very anxious that no similar mistakes should be made, and. that we should make it clear where we stand. I think public opinion is moving in this country. I have great confidence in the public opinion of this country. I believe the people passionately desire to avoid anything like war, and yet earnestly desire the friendship of France. I believe they are most anxious to stand well with France. I believe that they are, however, right, a thousand times right, in thinking that it is of the greatest importance for the stability and peace of Europe that these great nations should work in full and complete agreement with each other. But they also feel, unless I am very much mistaken, that there are certain developments of modern French policy which are disquieting in the extreme. I believe that the French people, the people, desire peace. I am sure they do. But there are facts which are disappointing. There was the speech of the French War Minister the other day, in which he insisted that the peace strength of the French army must never be allowed to fall below 660,000 men. It is a regrettable fact that they have never ratified the Washington Treaty. There is a fact that they declined to allow any consideration of the number of submarines to be brought up the Washington Conference. I am quite ready to believe that those are not necessarily symptoms of a warlike tendency. I do believe that the French people are essentially peaceful. But these things are disquieting to public opinion, and they have disquieted more and more. Let this be made quite clear to the French Government. If I thought that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would make for a clearer understanding between Parliaments and Governments, I would support it. Because I do not think so I cannot support it. Though I cannot support the Motion, I appeal to the Government to give some reassurance to the House and the country that they have made their position perfectly clear, that they know exactly what they are going to do, that there is no danger of our gradually drifting from
danger to danger until the opportunity for retreat is past.

Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I do not desire in any way to call into question the tragic tones employed by the opener of this Debate to-day. That tone well befits the present state of Europe. While I agree with him in the tones he has spoken, I cannot agree at all with his specific proposal for dealing with the evils mentioned. The Noble Lord referred to one case in which a foreign statesman attempted to speak to the people of a great nation behind the back of the Government. That failed. Most of us in this House can remember a case nearer home at the time of the Council of Action when a distinguished member of the Socialist party visited France for a similar purpose of interfering with the internal policy of. France. Most of us will remember the hurried exit he made from France on that occasion. The House, therefore, in all quarters, I think, will refuse to be drawn in the slightest way towards any interference with the organised democratic representation of France and Belgium in these matters. I believe—I think it is hardly necessary to give the grounds of it—that any such move is bound to lead to far more trouble than it can possibly cure in the present evils.
I am disquieted by a phrase in the Motion in which the Mover desires in the first instance to call for the appointment of Committees of the French and Belgian Chambers, and by the fact that nothing is said of our House of Lords because, presumably, there is no Socialist there, and only one in the French Senate. Supposing this Motion wwere accepted, the Government would be committed to action, and would not stop at the first instance. It is bound to go on to Germany, and one has a right to ask what would be the effect upon the Germans of applying this method there. Let us look at the internal situation of Germany. Our whole hope of obtaining reparation from Germany and a stable peace for Germany, lies in the strength, competence, authority, and prestige of the German Government. All last summer, all last autumn the German Government, attempted to bring into its coalition thevolks-partei of the big industrialists. If that had been done all Germany would
have been behind that Government. Who prevented it? The Socialist party, who refused to work with thevolks-partei, and the head of which left the Government; thus they created a new situation in Germany. At the present time thevolks-partei are not so large in Parliament or so representative, but there are outstanding personalities. The Socialist party stands outside.
If we or any nation approach Germany refusing to deal with the Government of Germany and claiming to deal through a Committee that step must undermine the present authority of the German Government, and tend to divide Germany when she wishes to be united and when it is in our interest to keep her united. I hope that Members will realise that whether it is peace with Germany or reparations from Germany it all depends upon the unity of Germany, and I trust that we shall refuse to take any step which might seem to tend to destroy the influence of the present highly unified Government in Germany which has the support of all parties and the support of the German people.
I am able to quote some evidence of this fact. Prince Max of Baden, who presided over the fateful events of October and November, 1918, under whose auspices the Kaiser resigned or abdicated, a few weeks ago came out of his political retirement in order to support and back up the present Government to the utmost. There is at the other end of the scale General Ludendorff and the extreme Nationalists who are rather active. The people of Germany are now united behind Dr. Curio, and General Ludendorff seems now ready to take to himself part of the credit for the present unity of the German nation. In the interests of Germany and of our own nation I hope the Government will refuse to give the least support to this Motion of the Socialist party. If I am asked what I propose to do I would say that our Government should accept amendments.
I ask, have we any fresh or additional information regarding the present powers of Germany, or powers she may have in the immediate future, to lay before the world in the interests of Germany, in the interests of peace, and in the interests of a sane policy by Frenchmen I think we have. I would ask the House to look at Germany on two sides; in the first place
as a highly industrialised nation; and, secondly, as a highly organised agricultural nation. The development of agriculture in Germany was so good before the War that the German nation required to import very little food from abroad, and, therefore, they were able to buy with their exports all kinds of things from abroad. At the present time, agriculture in Germany is more depleted than it has ever been before for the last 50 years.
The yield per acre for the harvest of 1922 in quantity for Germany is down by one-third. The total in quantity of the corn crop in 1922 amounted to 7.3 million tons, whereas in 1913 the total was 14.6 million tons, or exactly half. It is quite true that German industries received an immense stimulus from the War, and Germany has never been better able to make wealth and feed her people. What is wrong there is agriculture, for whereas in the old days, when her agriculture almost sufficed to supply all her needs, she could export. and import freely; new her agriculture is such that she must import great quantities of food, and they have no money to pay for imported goods, and therefore she cannot buy our manufactures.
Those are the two points I wish to make, namely, that the political situation in Germany is such that to pass the Motion put forward by the Labour party would almost be an act of treachery towards the future of Germany. The economic situation in Germany on the agricultural side is such as to make solvency for Germany in international trade a distant and doubtful effort, the French Government and the French nation would give as much attention to the importance to Germany of agriculture as they do to its other industries the whole controversy about reparations would be ended.

Mr. WISE: I have listened to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. J. Murray) and I quite agree with him as to the position of Germany with regard to her feeding of her own population. I do not, however, quite agree with him as to the German Government. I cannot, help thinking that one of the weaknesses we have to contend with at the present time is the unstable position of the German Government. You have had various changes of the Chancellor there and I think the German Government has shown
weakness ever since the reparations, and ever since the Schreidman Government refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Weakness has been shown by all the German Governments since that date. I agree, however, with the first three words of the Resolution, but as I read it through it reminds me of a Debate we had about a year ago on the Cabinet Secretariat, and I cannot help thinking if it, was carried it would he rather introducing the Cabinet Secretariat which was one of the great fallacies of this country after the War. My experience of it in Paris at the time of the Conference in 1919 was that they were conducting at the time of the Peace Treaty more or less the domination of the foreign policy of Britain. The leader of the Labour party has referred to the position of Germany. Undoubtedly it is getting worse and worse. It is essential from our point of view that we should combine security with reparations. Reparations is the burning question in Germany and even during the last fortnight since we had a Debate on reparations, the position in Germany has got worse. Her currency has increased to the now enormous amount of 3,123 milliards of marks, and that is gigantic. At the same time with that inflation, as I stated about a fortnight ago, we have a certain amount of danger. We have danger that Germany has a certain amount: of gold—I think it is £50,000,000. This should be pledged to the Reparation Commission. It means that with marks at 100,000 to the£sterling instead of 20 that for£31,000,000 odd, Germany could wipe out all her paper currency which she has at the present time. I coal-tend that we should take a lion on her gold and pledge it to reparations. When you mention reparations you should go back to the time of the Armistice. Up to this time the countries of Europe worked their finances in a wonderful way. Naturally we worked ours in a better way than other countries, because we taxed our people during the War, but what was the position at the time of the Armistice? The victorious countries were asked to send in their claims as to the amount of reparations they would expect. to get from Germany. The amount which was sent in was £26,000,000,000, and as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may remember at the time of the Treaty of Versailles, the amount was reduced to£11,000,000,000, and that was altered in May, 1921, to
£6,600,000,000, and that is the figure which is before the countries of Europe at the present time. As long as you have this figure you cannot have reparations and you cannot have security. The only possible way Germany can pay a large amount like that is by the whole of the industries of the world being idle except Germany. It is an impossible thing. We have taken from Germany by the reparations 74 per cent. of her iron ore and 34 per cent. of her hard coal, her colonies, a large part of her agricultural land and one-tenth of her population. It is no good considering reparations, unless we are ready to consider a reasonable and just amount. I contend that the amount which the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade put before the Paris Government early in January was nearer the right figure. We can alter it., but I do not think that that figure cannot possibly be increased. What is the position of France? I contend that France has been playing her part badly since the Treaty. I am a believer in France and I want to support her, but she has made some very foolish mistakes, especially with regard to her dealing with land in Lorraine. After the War I heard of three German brothers who had land in Lorraine. After the Versailles Treaty was signed the French Government sent a letter to these brothers to say that they must become nationalised Frenchmen, but they refused. The French Government, then stated that they would take their land in Lorraine which was iron ore land, but they said, "We will allow two of you to remain Germans as long as one of you becomes a Frenchman? These three brothers tossed up and the one I happen to know of the three was the unlucky one and he had to become a Frenchman in order to hold this land in Lorraine. Do you ever think that that man will really be a Frenchman? It is fine little points like this which prick the Germans and no doubt there are many points that prick Frenchmen.
I cannot help thinking that France, if she is going to have peace and security, must spend far less on her militarism. She has spent gigantic sums upon it so far. In 1919 she spent 18 milliards of francs; in 1920, 7 milliards: in 1921, 6 milliards; and last year 5 milliards of francs. It. is far too much. The country cannot afford it, and if we are to get
peace and security we must see that this militarism is stopped. The Leader of the Labour party wondered as to the position of France with regard to The Ruhr. On the right bank of the Rhine there are 125 blast furnaces. Seventy-five of them were working on the 1st January; 25 only were working on the 20th February. That shows the difficulty there will be for France to get extra reparations. Reparations can only be paid practically in goods. They can only be paid if the workmen are willing to work. If you want the men to be willing to work you must give them some hope in the future, and unless you do that I feel there will be no chance of France or anyone else getting large reparations. Europe is in a most serious state. Every country is spending more than it should. Every country except Finland and Czechoslovakia in 1922 imported more than they exported. Until we can get Europe right as a whole, it will be impossible to do what this Resolution suggests and discuss the position with France and Belgium. I deplore. that the United States is not included in this Resolution. I feel that nothing definite can be secured either by way of reparations or security or peace without the United States. President Harding has made one or two important speeches in the last month or two. I feel that if America would only come in we might then look forward to security and reparations. I sincerely hope that in the near future our Government may be in a position to tentatively approach the Americans from a humane point of view, asking them if they will not come forward to help to bring about what we all want, permanent peace and security.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I feet that in rising to take part in this discussion I owe the House an apology, because there is a tradition in regard to questions on foreign affairs that into such questions laymen should not rush while we have in the House 60 many professionally qualified to deal with the subject. There is also a. tendency to suggest that foreign affairs should be dealt with only in well chosen language, almost in whispered words lest one should by some indiscreet remark create international difficulties. Nevertheless; as a plain blunt man representing plain blunt men who have none of this special knowledge to which I have re-
ferred, I feel that we are entitled to state bluntly and plainly our views on the present situation, which may endanger not merely our economic interests and, indeed, our livelihood, but ultimately our lives as well. I want to say that the people who have conducted our foreign affairs up till now, according to all the evidence before us, have been failures. They have failed to give us European peace. They have failed to give us European harmony, and the discussion in which we are taking part to-day is clue to their complete failures in the past.
What I want to know, as a plain man, at the outset, is, Where do we as a nation stand in this matter? What is our actual position? Where are we going in the policy we are considering and where do we want to go? What price are we prepared to pay for the goal which we wish to attain? Have we altogether abandoned our claim for reparations or have we reduced it, and what is the amount of our reduced claim? If we have given up our claim or, rather, our hope to get either indemnities or reparations out of Europe, then I want to know what right we have to interfere in the affairs of Europe. We have no right to approach the European nations from a pinnacle of superior morality. I want to remind hon. Members that we, who are lecturing France to-day as to what she should do in the Ruhr, are the people who confiscated German ships and made no apology, who confiscated the German colonies and still hold them. After all, we are morally just as bad as France, and, therefore, we ought to come down from that pinnacle of moral superiority, on which we dearly love to sit, and we ought to face this question as honest men of the world. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) told us that what we wanted to do was to place this matter in the hands of the League of Nations so as to place Germany on her feet. Looking at the records of the Noble Lord, I find that during the War he occupied a position of considerable influence in the Government. From 1915 to 1918, when I and others were foresecing the calamity of an ending of the War, such as we have experienced, the Noble Lord did nothing at all to put Germany on her feet. I submit that had he been wise in 1915 or 1918, when there was an opportunity of securing all that Britain
had at stake in the War by negotiations —when Germany was practically beaten— if he had been as wise as he is to-day, he might have ranked as one of the benefactors of Europe.
I want this country to admit frankly that we have economic interests in the Ruhr which are in rivalry with French interests. Until you admit that, or, at any rate, until you recognise that you have international conflicting interests in the Ruhr, you will not secure your end. They are the root of the trouble and you will have that paralysis of statesmanship which is characteristic of every one of the countries that is attempting to find a solution of this dangerous problem. The root cause of all your troubles is the failure of international competition. It is the failure of the War to bring peace. It is the failure of the War to bring happiness or indeed to bring about that state of society which I assume Members on both sides of the House are anxious to see established. When you approach the matter from that point of view you will view it in an entirely different light, but you must first accept this big principle that the economic resources of Europe should be operated in the interests of all the peoples of Europe. You are not going to attain that by the policy of Tory Imperialism which hopes to secure the end by British domination in Europe; neither are you going to attain it by the principles so beloved of the Liberal party, the principles of Free Trade, the principle of every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Neither am I sure that the view of the majority of the Members of my own party is going to be any more successful. When you have to face a problem that is essentially economic, you cannot solve that problem by laying moral emphasis on certain national rights.
I approve of the Conference demanded in the Resolution. Anxious as I am to see that Resolution adopted, I am equally anxious to know what principles and what programme are going to be submitted to the Conference. I believe that many of the difficulties we have to face in this matter are, in the main, superficial. Nevertheless, they are difficulties that create great passions among the people, just as email difficulties in this House create great passions in the minds of its Members. There is the French desire for national safety. That
must be satisfied, but I do not think that that is anything like the main cause of the difficulty. The main trouble is to be found in the fact that a combination of the Ruhr coal and the Lorraine iron ore is desirable economically, but politically it would be disastrous. That is the root of the evil. There are peculiar qualities in the Ruhr coal which make it eminently suitable for use in the treatment of the are found in the Lorraine district. Previous to the outbreak of war Germany had control of both the iron ore in Lorraine and the coal in the Ruhr Valley, and, having that joint control, she was a menace not merely to. the national safety of France but also to British industrial prosperity.
6.0 P.M.
I am thoroughly convinced that, when the troth of the cause of the War comes to be written—I think Lord Rosebery stated during the War that we might expect to ascertain the truth about half a century after the War terminated—the cause of the War will to a large extent be found in the fear of France of that military superiority which the combination of these materials gave to Germany, and the fear of Britain of the industrial superiority in the steel markets of the world which that combination gave to its rival. If that made. Germany a great menace prior to the War, it makes France a great menace after the War, because the combination in ownership of these two valuable deposits is still in a single hand, and the only change the War has made in the economic relationships or rivalries of Europe is that it has substituted France for Germany in relation to Great Britain. It is not through any accident that, immediately France set. out to combine the Ruhr coal with the Lorraine iron. the friendship of Britain showed a distinct disposition to cool. That was due to a realisation by our statesmen that France was now becoming, not merely their great military rival, but their great industrial rival in every part of the world.
1 do not need to explain the tremendous power that France will wield if she succeeds in attaining her present goal. You know that trade follows the flag in the sense that we gain certain concessions by our military superiority in the various parts of the
world. You know, also, that, in modern warfare victory will invariably go to the engineer. You know that the ownership of all these mineral deposits will make France unquestionably the military superior in Europe, and that, having gained the military superiority, she will use that to get those concessions for her surplus capital which you desire to get for the capital you are exporting to-day. It is your business vision, it is your realisation of how much is involved in this, that makes you critical of the attitude which France has adopted in getting control of the Ruhr coalfield. But if you recognise that, I think you should be perfectly frank. I do not think you have anything to lose by stating that to France. I think you are perfectly justified in saying to France, "We recognise that if you get this power it is going to be bad for us, and, before we allow you to become the military boss of Europe. or the industrial boss in the steel markets of the world, we are going to interfere and nip your imperialistic career in the bud."
I think the French people are not at all misled as to your position and attitude. When you set about, in the Rhine area, to embarrass the French, they do not regard it as a friendly act. I do not think they regard your retention of 7,000 or 8,000 troops on the Rhine as being in the interests of France. I believe they recognise your retention of that army in Europe as being in the interest of Germany. I do not think you have anything at all to lose by putting your cards on the table and saying. "Now, look here; we are going to lay down this big principle that, as the various nations have a vital interest in the possession of the Ruhr coal, we want a policy that will give us co-operation in that, and control Giver that which is essential to our national livelihood." I do not think you will have any difficulty at all in pleading than no individual nation in the community of nations has any right to an individual ownership of that which all require, any more than an individual in the community has a right to assert his claim against all the other members of the community. If you approached it in that way you would get what seems to me, after giving the matter some thought without any expert knowledge of foreign affairs or any great claim to statesman-
ship, a reasonable and probably the only way out of the difficulty, namely, an agreement to the holding of a Conference to which you would send your delegates to plead for the internationalisation of the Ruhr coalfield.
It may be asked, if you are going to plead for that, why could you not agree to the internationalisation, say, of the coalfield of Lancashire or of Lanarkshire? The reason is this, that you have to deal with the facts of a situation: as you find them, and you have no right to say, "We are going to do nothing because we can- not do everything." The fact of the situation is that Germany has lost in the War. She has been beaten to her knees, and, according to the rules of War and the rules of competition, and by the admission of Germany herself. she is in debt to a certain extent to the people who beat her in the War. We may desire, as I have no doubt many hon. Members on this side of the House, do, to see a state of society in which there will be no war, and in which no nation will be beaten to its knees but it would be foolish for us to allow our views as to what might be to bedim our vision of the facts of the present situation. The present situation is that Germany is a debtor to the Allied countries of Europe, and what I am suggesting is that you should send your delegates to the Conference, realising that which is admitted, not only by the Allies, but by Germany and all the other States and that you should propose there to co-operate with France and Germany and the other interested countries in temporarily, on the principle of internationalisation, working the deposits in the Ruhr valley for the benefit of all the people in Europe who require the products.
See how that would deal with the situation. Right at the outset you would remove the French fear for their international safety, because you would take out of the hands of Germany the economic advantages that would give her, if she held them as she held them before the War, the only weapon with which she could keep France in subjection. To Germany you would be able to say: "This will enable you to have immediately the political integrity and independence of the Ruhr and the Rhine area." Your international board of directors would work the Ruhr coalfield subject to the political Government of Germany, in exactly the same way that
a privately-owned profit-making company would operate it under the German Government. You would also remove what is at the back of the minds of the leaders of British industry, namely, the fear of their being ousted in the steel markets of the world by a. France with unquestioned control of that area. Then the coal in the Ruhr area would be for sale to the highest bidder, and you would get your national industrial safety by paying a higher price for the Ruhr coal than would be paid for it by France or by Germany. If that price were slightly higher than the market rate, that would be your insurance for national industry safety.
I want it to be realised that international conflict is going to pay no one. I want this country to set out on a principle of co-operation, and I have no doubt that:, with co-operation in the control of that economic interest in which we are rivals, we should be laying the foundation of European peace for a long time to come. As regards the condition of the Germans, one of the unfortunate things in politics is that everyone wants to make out a case in support of Iris own preconceived views, and when we come to deal with the situation in Europe we get all sorts of views about the condition of the people there. I am not going to paint the German people as being in a very happy condition. I believe they are in a deplorable condition. I am merely submitting in all sincerity to this House that they are not the only people who are in a. deplorable condition. I represent a division in the east end of Glasgow, and I undertake to produce, man for man or woman for woman, as much poverty from the east end of Glasgow as can be produced from Central Europe to-day.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: And Manchester too.

Mr. WHEATLEY: As, perhaps, some hon. outliers know, I spent a few days in that area recently, and had the utmost facilities for obtaining, at any rate, a superficial view of the situation. Whatever may be said about the conclusions at which we have arrived, I have yet to meet anyone who questions the facts that we have stated. For instance, no one will question the fact that the German people in this unfortunate area are better housed than the people in my area
—that the houses which are being erected for them to-day in these most distressful circumstances are immeasurably superior, in their conception of what human beings are entitled to in the way of domestic accommodation to anything that obtains in this country. As far as we could see, the people were better clothed, and I think it is unquestioned that the working classes there are much better educated than our people have had the opportunity of being in the industrial centres of Great Britain. I believe it is the fact they are much worse fed. I had not any opportunity of judging that, but from what I do know, I believe they arc much worse fed.
What I am anxious to prove is that the difference in their lot is not sufficient to justify my supporting a policy that might lead to my poor people ultimately having to fight with other poor people in Europe. I am not going to be led into that policy either by militarists or pacifists. In my view, the policy of Britain should be one of strict neutrality. We ought not to embarrass France or to help Germany. I believe France is wrong. I detest the policy of France; I detest the activities of France; but I do not think that that policy or those activities would justify me in advising the people whom I represent in this House to be prepared to go into warfare to try to improve conditions in Central Europe. when there is so much poverty and so much scope for removing it in every industrial centre of Great Britain. Therefore, I lay it down as our primary duty that we should not embarrass Franco or lecture France, however much we may detest the French policy. That way leads to war. That is the way in which is created such an atmosphere that one unfortunate incident might lead us into another great. European War. The primary duty of the British people in this crisis is to mind their own business.

Mr. CLARRY: It was not my intention to enter into the Debate on this important matter, but I feel during the few short weeks of this Session that a considerable amount is being said in a certain direction, and, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, we in this House are the custodians of public opinion. I do not feel that a certain public opinion, and a view which I hold, has been sufficiently
pronounced in the House in proportion to the views held in the country. May I ask the kind indulgence of the House -which is usually accorded to those who make their first speech. Although I was a Member of the last Parliament. I had not the privilege of taking my, seat. because on the day after my election the dissolution took place. The Motion under review refers specifically to a Committee of all political sections in France awl Belgium to exchange information and views. I should like to ask whether there are any new points which have arisen since this mass of documents which I have here was issued a fortnight ago representing the views of the Conference that took place in Paris. Can any further good come out of further conferences? Are not the Labour party emulating the ex-Premier in embarking on a fresh and further futile lot of Conferences which can end only in one result.? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) the other day, in referring to the League of Nations in connection with this reparations problem, gave a qualified approval of the League of Nations and said it was too much in the nature of an allied instrument instead of an impartial international body and consequently it was not qualified efficiently to deal with the matter of reparations. The three nations concerned in this Motion, France. Belgium and ourselves, are the principal components of the League of Nations. If the League of Nations as a whole, which combines those three, is not fit or is too much of an allied instrument to deal with the matter, how eon three component parts of it possibly deal with it successfully I Suppose for a moment that this Motion was accepted and a Committee appointed and that Committee in conjunction with these other two nations had sat in solemn conclave, and had talked, and as the outcome of their views arrived at a certain decision. That decision may or may not be that Germany had to do something or to pay something. We will assume they decided on a certain sum or a certain course of action. Suppose Germany, in accordance with the impression she has given us during the past four and a half years, refused to pay and took practically no steps in complying, would the Labour party then use force to enforce it? If they would they merely put themselves in
the position of France to-day. If they would not, why bring forward this further futile Motion?
The last speaker said he entirely disagreed with the French policy. May we assume that that is the view expressed by the Labour party? If it is, why are we calling this Committee to exchange views if, in advance, and before they have exchanged views, the Labour party absolutely and unconditionally condemn the policy of France? They have condemned it in advance, or else it renders unnecessary the calling of this Committee. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be rather indignant that the attitude of France was to redraft the Treaty. That indignation was not apparent some years ago when he made the suggestion that Germany would do that for herself. It brings us then merely to the conclusion which we are forced to, because the matters under discussion in this Motion are really a rehash and practically the third resurrection we have had in three weeks of the same subject, and it can only paint to one thing, that it is a subject matter of window dressing for the Labour party to give them opportunity of airing their views in public. Perhaps at some future date they may come out of the clouds and give us something of a more practical nature which we can work on. The position crystallises itself into three views, the. attitude now adopted by France and Belgium; the attitude adopted by this country, which I have heard named shortly as benevolent neutrality, and the attitude practically of antagonism to France an attitude which is pro-German and I regret to say which appears to find sympathy with hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition. At all risks—and I have risked things before to-day—I am prepared to say that I think right from the beginning we should have stood beside France, and in doing so we should probably have avoided the military turmoil that we have in Europe to-day. The continued talk which can only be regarded as sympathy with Germany is heartening them and giving them strength to carry on in opposition. That view which I have expressed is merely personal, but it is strong in the length and breadth of the country, and it is particularly strong in the constituency which I represent, and is primarily the reason for my getting up to say there is another view in the country and that is that we can
support France, and it is hoped that at no distant date the Government may see their way through the light of reason to take their proper place on the stage of European politics. Although this is not the view of the Government, I am prepared to support the Government because, of two more or less feeble attitudes which we have before us at this time, the Government one is the lesser.

Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I hope I shall not be doing any injustice to the Mover of the Motion if I surmise that he attaches more importance to the opportunity of ventilating his general views upon the crisis in the Ruhr than to the precise practical remedy which the Motion contains. I am not at all surprised that, he is impatient and that he desires to see something done promptly to relieve a situation which is fraught with embarrassments and indeed with dangers which the passage of time can only aggravate. I do not, therefore, agree with the hon. Member who has just. delivered so clear and interesting a maiden speech that this is a mere question of window dressing and that the Labour party are not in earnest in their desire to find a practical solution of a very difficult problem. With one portion of the Motion I find myself in complete agreement. It alludes to the very general desire of the peoples of Europe for peace. I believe that is quite true. The peoples of Europe are sick of war. They desire to see permanent and. stable peace established. But I do not derive that amount of support and consolation from this fact which appears to animate hon. Members on the Labour Benches, because the source of our present difficulty is not any divergence of view between Germany and France as to the desirability of peace, but a complete and absolute contrariety as to the mode in which peace can best be maintained. On the one hand you have. I admit, an extreme view held by a large number of persons in France—I do not say by Members of the Government—that the only secure way of establishing a stable peace in Europe is through a permanent domination of the Ruhr district by the French, and on the other hand you have the view that no policy which the wit of man can conceive constitutes so effectual and so imperious a challenge to a new war. The tragedy of it is that the peoples of the world, desirous as they are of obtaining peace, are not, as the
Motion seems to imply, always desirous of supporting the policy which is most calculated to lead to peace. wish I could think the peoples of Germany and of France were not eyeing one another with passions of hate and suspicion iii their breasts, and that we were not witnessing the growth of a psychological condition fraught with great danger to the peace of Europe.
The Motion proposes the establishment of a Committee. It seems to me to be founded upon the sanguine fallacy that Parliaments and Governments are two things entirely separate and disjointed from one another. The Motion seems to assume that if the Governments fail to arrive at an agreement the Parliaments will easily reach a compromise. That I believe to be a fallacy. If I have one criticism to offer upon modern government in a democratic State it is that they have better ears that eyes, that they are very good liseners but not always equally adept in looking into the mists of the future. I do not believe that if this Committee were set up it would produce any valuable practical result and, reading between the lines of my lion. Friend's most eloquent and interesting speech, I think he himself has very little faith in the expedient which he commends to the House. In the speech which was delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) we learned that it was essential to treat the problem of reparation and the problem of security together that they were integral and interrelated parts of a single problem. I agree with that view. I do not believe that we shall have a satisfactory solution of reparations unless we also get a satisfactory solution or the problem of French security. Here I confess that I am greatly discouraged by the attitude recently taken up by the French Prime Minister. It is true that in most explicit and comforting terms M. Poincaé disclaimed any intention to annex German territory. This is what he said. I am quoting from the Blue Book of Inter-Allied Conferences on Reparations and Inter-Allied Debts:
He must take this opportunity to protest energetically to the Allied Government against Mr. Lloyd George's hypothesis that the French nation had any idea of annexing any part of Germany. He must state without the smallest room for doubt that there was not in France a single man—he would not say a responsible Minister or politician. but even a man in the street—
who would contemplate the idea of annexing any territory containing a foreign population. The idea of this could not enter a French brain.
That is a very assuring statement from the French Prime Minister, but I regret to say that it is the only reassuring statement on the subject of security which is contained in this Blue Book. M. Poincaré is not content with the disarmament of Germany, complete as that disarmament now is, and is believed to be. He is not content with the guarantees contained in Clause 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. He would not even be content with a tri-partite pact such as was signed, but not ratified, by England, America, and France. On that point he says, on page 71 of the Blue Book
Even an Anglo-American pact guarantee duly ratified by the Federal Senate, and assuring to France within a determined period an arranged military defensive, would not suffice entirely to relieve France of anxiety.
That is a very disquieting statement, when to this we add the fact that the Germans last December made an overture, through their Minister in Washington, to the following effect:
The German, British, French and Italian Governments solemnly engage themselves towards one another and promise the United States not to make war amongst themselves for a generation (say, for thirty years) unless the matter is decided by popular vote, which should make war virtually impossible.
When we hear that that proposal was stigmatised by M. Poincaré as a clumsy manœnvre, we are tempted to ask what will content the French Government. If all these offers are futile, if even the tri-partite pact would not give France an adequate sense of security, what will give France an adequate sense of security? I know that there is a very widespread feeling in France—I do not say that it is the official opinion of the French Government, but it is an opinion held by many of my closest friends there —that there are in reality two Germanys. There is a Germany which can be detached, with its own good will, ultimately, from its relations to the general body, and there is the Germany which now centres, and will continue to centre, round the hard core of Prussia. I have heard it said frequently, in conversation in France, that it is to the interest, not only of France, but European stability
and peace, that this sub-division of Germany should be effected, with such regard for the feelings of the population as may be, but that, at any rate, it should be effected. The men who hold that view are very largely influenced by historical recollections of what happened in the days of Richelieu and Mazarin, and they think that the policy which France pursued then could be successfully repeated now.
If that be the real view governing the policy of France, then it is fraught with deadly catastrophe. The advocates of that view have not in the least appreciated what modern Germany is. They have not in the least appreciated the strength of the motives which keep Germany together. It is true that there are two Germanys; there is the republican and democratic Germany, and there is the feudal and militarist Germany. The way to secure France from the repetition of disaster is not to attempt the territorial division of Germany, which is bound to end in ruin, and bound to lead to future war, but to make friends with republican and democratic Germany, which is hated by the feudal classes, and by degrees so to contrive that German citizens will feel that Germany can he a prosperous State and a secure State under a democratic republic. At the present time, so I am told by those who have recently returned from Germany, the course which is now being pursued by the French Government is creating a doubt in many German minds as to whether it was wise to exchange the monarchical and military system for the republican and democratic system which now prevails. It is not only to the interests of France, but to the interests of the whole of Europe, that a hand should be held out to the republican Government of Germany as soon as it becomes clear, as I hope it will become clear, that that. Government is willing to fulfil its obligations.
The situation is indeed dark and perilous, and it may be asked what have I to suggest. I have only to repeat the suggestion that I made in the Debate on the Address, that sooner or later, better sooner than later, this question of reparations and security must be settled by international authority, and that every effort must be made to bring America in. When I speak of international authority, let me explain that I have a very strong preference for the use of the machinery
which already exists in the League of Nations for the settlement of this question. The League of Nations has a skilled Secretariat, it has a regular method of work, it contains 51 States, it mobilises the opinion of a great part of the world, and consequently it should be used. The Noble Lord has anticipated a suggestion which I proposed to make to the Government when he said that it would be very difficult to hold the next Council meeting of the League in April, without making some reference to a situation which is so disturbing. It would, indeed, be unfortunate, not only for the League but for the world, if, an occasion having arisen gravely menacing the peace of Europe, it should be an established diplomatic convention that no Power is entitled to raise that question in the Council of the League, if it has an impression that by so doing it will affront any member of the League.
If we once take up that line, we might as well destroy the Covenant of the League. In the grave days which preceded the outbreak of war in 1914, Sir Edward Grey made a proposal to the German Chancellor that the question at issue should be referred to arbitration. The German Chancellor said that Germany would not submit to foreign intervention. If the League of Nations had been in existence in July, 1914, and if Germany had been a member of that League, would our Foreign Minister have felt himself precluded from referring that question to the Council of the League simply because he was under the impression that by so doing he would incur the displeasure of Germany? If that view be taken, if precedents of that kind are to be established, then we have in the League of Nations no effectual instrument for dealing with a grave international crisis. I hope that the Government will keep steadily in view the desirability of submitting this question at the earliest opportunity to the Council of the League of Nations, and that they will keep steadily in view the importance of invoking the aid of America in the settlement of a complex problem, involving, as it appears to do, the re-writing of a very important part. of the Treaty of Versailles. I agree with the Noble Lord when he pressed on the Government the desirability of making up their minds as to what they really consider to be an effectual and reasonable security
to offer to France. I think that we ought to be clear upon that. I think that it is the key to the situation, and if I am asked what remedy I suggest I can only suggest this, that the Government make it clear to France, Germany and the whole world that they regard this present issue between France and Germany, nut as an issue affecting two nations, but as an issue affecting the peace and prosperity of the whole world. We should keep before ourselves steadily the idea of an international solution. We should work for it with all our power, and we should make it clear to France that an attempt to effect a separate solution of this question could not be considered otherwise than as an unfriendly act.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In the eloquent and pathetic speech to which we have just, listened as to the European situation, the right hon. Gentleman stated that France would not be satisfied with a tripartite pact with England and the United States in order to secure peace in the future. French feeling in the matter is easily understood in view of the fact that America has removed all her troops on the Rhine and is now cutting down her Army to a very small force, and that the United States would take at least a year to get ready for war, as was proved in the Great War, while in our own country we have cut down our Army—I am not going to discuss now whether that is a right or wrong policy—to a force of 150,000 men, and therefore it would he only with the greatest difficulty, and in worse conditions than in 1914, because then we had a very large reserve and a huge territorial force, that we could give any assistance to France if she were attacked. Several months would elapse. The right hon. Gentleman said that M. Poinearé said that France would not he satisfied with such a pact.

Mr. FISHER: M. Poincaé spoke of an Anglo-American pact, assuring to France, within a determined period an arranged military defence.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I do not think that that alters the position, because it would not be possible for either America or this country to provide a military force under several months, and the French, expecting, as they would expect, a surprise attack, are not satis-
fled with that safeguard. Of course, it would mean probably that Germany would think several times before attacking France, if she knew that America and England would come in. Another point which he made was the same old argument which the Liberal party used to put before the House before the War, that is, that there were two Germanys—one the great, democratic peaceful, law-abiding, splendid German people, and, on the other hand, the Prussian brute, the monarchical autocrat, and that if you wanted the true German you must regard the democratic man as the principal German and the monarchical man as in the minority, and therefore as not controlling the policy of Germany. The exact opposite was the case, and it is the case now as before. The leopard does not change its spots, and the German is exactly the same German as he was before the War. He made a Treaty at Versailles. Has he carried out a single word of it? Hardly anything of that Treaty has been carried out by the German nation. They have repeatedly broken their promise. That is what has driven France into the Ruhr.
One would imagine from discussions in this House and various statements by a great many hon. Members opposite, who do not hold the views which we hold, that we had never said that we were going to the Ruhr ourselves or that we would back France in going to the Ruhr. Yet less than two years ago in this House the then Prime Minister made a statement, on the 5th May, 1921. He said that he had given an ultimatum to Germany that unless she paid up a proportion of reparation within a week the Allies were going into the Ruhr. Further he said, in the last clause of that statement, to the Germans, that such occupation would continue so long as Germany fails to comply with the conditions mentioned in paragraph C. That paragraph calls on the German Government to declare within a period of six days its resolve to carry out without reserve its obligations under the Treaty. Then when the French go into the Ruhr we have Debates In which hon. Members lecture the great French nation, and talk about the most disastrous policy on the part of the French as something which is going to end in ruin.
This House is no place to discuss French politics except in so far as they
actually touch upon our own conditions. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) proposes to deal with the situation by setting up a sort of select committee of representatives of Parliaments who are to meet together and to discuss matters and inform each other as to what the opinion in other countries is. This proposal is utterly impracticable. I agree with other hon. Members who say that they do not suppose that the hon. Member really thought that there was much practical use in the proposal except as merely furnishing a means by which the question of the Ruhr could be discussed. The principal reason why it is utterly impracticable is the fact that neither France nor Belgium would send any such committee of their Parliaments to discuss the matter even if we made the suggestion. The hon. Member read letters from one or two isolated socialists in those countries, saying that, they were in favour of this proposal. One was from the leader of the Belgian socialists it is true, but as they are in a minority he cannot speak for the Belgians, and I am quite sure that the Belgian Government would repudiate any proposal to have such a conference of microcosms of each Parliament.
In the course of his fairly temperate speech the hon. Member made one remark which I thought very mischievous. He suggested that the French are going to form an anti-British bloc in Europe, and in a great deal of what he said he suggested the French were really going to be our enemies in future instead of our friends and Allies, as they have been up to now. I think that that was an utterly baseless suggestion. I am convinced that the French have no intention of being our enemies, and that the views of the majority of people in this- country, especially of the ex-fighting men, are not those expressed by hon. Members opposite, hut are in favour of the French going into the Ruhr arid staying there, in the words of the Allies' ultimatum of the 5th May, 1921, until the Germans have paid their part of the reparation. The Germans had no intention of carrying out their part of the reparation clauses. They put us off in 1921 by promises and they have done nothing since, and then when the French do put in force these sanctions, to which we ourselves agreed
with the French, we go away and leave them in the lurch, though I do not know what the reasons for it were.
I must say, in the presence- of the Prime Minister, that I am sure that he knows that there are millions of people in this country, who support the party which supports him, who are entirely at the back of the French in this matter, who believe that the French have done the right thing, and do not believe that the French are there for the purpose of remaining in the Ruhr for ever, but only until they have succeeded in getting fair and reasonable terms of reparation. The Noble Lord spoke also of what he considered ought to have been done by our Government. He said that we ought to come out now and say definitely what we are going to do in the event of certain circumstances arising, and, in illustration of the necessity for that, he said that he believed if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley had in 1914, before the outbreak of war, told the German Government and the German people what our attitude was going to be in the event of their going to war with France, very likely the War might have been avoided.

Lord R. CECIL: I did not put it quite so strongly.

7.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I would like to know how it would have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement like that to the German people, when all the time he was being told by his own supporters in those days that there was no danger of war, that the Germans were our friends? Any attempt to warn the Germans that if they attacked France we would go to war as well, would have caused his Government to fall at once, and one of the critics of the right hon. Gentleman would have been the hon. Member for Aberavon, who was always going about the country telling the people that the Germans were our friends, and that there was no necessity for strong navies. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who recently has been out in Germany, proposed another solution in the course of his interesting speech. His solution was that the Ruhr district should be internationalised. I do not know how that would commend itself to Germany as an alternative to having the French there. I can imagine that if the proposal were
made in this country that the South Wales coalfields should be internationalised, and that other nations should get the advantage of these coalfields, even Members of the Labour party would protest very strongly. Of course that proposal also is impossible. I do not think enough friendship has been displayed in this Debate apropos of France. The hon. Member for Aberavon always makes speeches in which he says he is a friend of France and wants to see France friendly with us, and so on. I do not know, but it seems to me that they might reply:
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love
But—why did you kick me down stairs? 
In every speech the hon. Gentleman makes he accuses the French people and the French nation of the most malevolent intentions. I hope, on the contrary, that our Government will not only for the present maintain their attitude, but that, if possible, they will be able in the future still further to help France to make this occupation of the Ruhr a success. By doing so they will bring that occupation to an end sooner than by merely doing nothing and adopting a policy of benevolent neutrality.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No one can complain of the impartiality of the last speaker. He said something about the Motion and the object of the Labour party in moving it, but it will be observed that he apparently got up to express the view of a very small minority in this House. He first indicated that he had a grievance against the pre-War Government. He bad a bigger grievance against the Labour party; but he certainly indicated that he was not a whole-hearted supporter even of the present Government. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) adopted an attitude as curious and as difficult as that which he adopted a fortnight ago. He said, in substance, that he agreed with a discussion of this question, and he believed it was getting more serious than ever; but he pointed out that the proposal we are making is entirely impracticable and that, in his judgment, the matter ought to be referred to the League of Nations It is very difficult to under-
stand the Noble Lord adopting that attitude to-day compared with the one he took up a fortnight ago. Just a fortnight ago we were discussing a Motion on precisely the same subject, but with a different reference. The proposal then made was that this matter should be referred to the League of Nations. The Noble Lord gave two grounds for opposing that Motion. His first reason was, that in his opinion, if it were carried it would mean a, change of Government, and that he was not prepared to risk. Secondly, he said he believed it was inopportune and dangerous. If, to-day, it is right to refer this matter to the League of Nations, one can hardly appreciate the consistency of the Noble Lord after his speech of a fortnight ago.

Lard R. CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he will be good enough to read my speech of a fortnight ago, that I said precisely the same then as I did this afternoon. I said I though there ought to be a reference to the League: that there is would be a reference to the League; and that the time and method of that reference must be left to the Executive Government, of the day; otherwise it would be an attempt by this House to assume the functions of the Executive Government, for which it was not fitted.

Mr. THOMAS: It was while the noble Lord was speaking just now that I asked one of my hon. Friends to bring me the copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, because it struck me, immediately the Noble Lord spoke, that he was inconsistent with his previous speech. I immediately marked the passage to see how it squared with the position this afternoon, I marked it for a reason which the Noble, Lord will appreciate. When, a fortnight ago, we urged and supported a reference to the League of Nations, we had it in our mind anew that Mr. Branting would raise the question at the next meeting.

Lord R. CECIL: That was at, the last meeting.

Mr. THOMAS: It was because we knew that Mr. Branting was going to raise it.

Lord R. CECIL: Oh no!

Mr. THOMAS: It was because we knew that he had agreed to raise the question that we took the view that, whatever
might be said about the imperfections of the League of Nations, this question was so serious that it did not matter where it was raised if something could be done with it. Mr. Branting did raise the question, but he was practically ruled out. He was told it was impossible. Therefore, the point I am making with regard to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, is this. It is perfectly true that there could be and has been criticism of the proposal we are now making. Our first proposal, in an Amendment to the Address, was for an international conference. The Noble Lord did not support that. Then came our support of the next proposal, which was for reference to the League of Nations. To-day, we are putting forward a further proposal, but as my hon. Friend the leader of the party said, we are not riveted to it. What we are concerned with is that every day that passes renders the position more difficult and more dangerous, and that probably we shall reach a situation where it will be impossible to do anything.
I submit that this Debate ought not to close without the Prime Minister making perfectly clear to the House what the Government policy is and, what is more important, if the Government is aware of the French policy? If it is Reparation which the French people are after this fact stands out, that although they h ye been in occupation of the Ruhr for six weeks it cannot be disputed that prior to that occupation they got more coal in two days than dining the whole subsequent period of six weeks. What is significant is that if we quote speeches from Frenchmen or Germans we are always accused of having a sort of anti-French feeling in this matter. I want to put to the House what I believe to be one of the most remarkable statements on the situation prior to the occupation, and to compare it with the situation to-day. The former Chairman of the Inter-Allied Reparation Authority in Essen, Mr. W. R. Heatly—this is one of our own appointments—has set out what was the situation prior to the occupation. He says:
As the late chairman of the Essen Inter-Allied Reparation Authority, I have had during that period, exceptional opportunities of studying the changing phases of the question. In the spring of 1920, I took the chair at a meeting held near Essen, when representatives of the Allied Powers met about forty representative miners for the purpose of explaining to them the necessity
and justice of the demands made upon the German coal mines to deliver coal in recompense for the coal mines destroyed in France and Belgium. It was an agreeable and somewhat unexpected pleasure to us to find a ready understanding on the part of the German miners and a generous admission of the fairness of the claim. Not only were our statements met with acquiescence, but the minors who spoke were applauded when they gave their opinion that the claim on the German coal mines was just and reasonable…In order to give effect to it they decided upon extra production of about 1,000,000 tons of coal per month, equivalent roughly to the French demand.
I ask the House to take notice of that statement by the Chairman of the Commission. I draw particular attention to it, for the reason that it proves conclusively that France was looking for an excuse to do what she is doing to-day.
I want to follow it up by examining into the consequences. We arc told that Belgian opinion is united behind France. I not only challenge that statement, but I say that less than a week ago I met the representatives of the Belgian Trade Union movement, which is a strong movement. They were emphatic in their condemnation of the French policy. Why? Not only because they felt it was wrong, but because the situation at this moment is that in Belgium three steel factories have already been closed for the want of coal. There are 24 furnaces in Lorraine already closed, and all the furnaces in Luxemburg are closed. I want to put to the House the first effect of the French action. It is admitted—it is undisputed—that it is causing unemployment in Belgium. It is increasing the cost of living in France, and unquestionably it is driving the franc up and up, until there is no one in France To-day who does not frankly admit, when you talk to him privately, that disaster is inevitable.
There is a much more serious side with regard to what is really taking place. M. Poincaré said last Saturday, in a Debate, that he was not a man to negotiate; he was one of those who believed in acting. I want the House to observe the kind of act that is going on to-day. Here is a telegram I have received to-day from Berlin:
French troops continue occupation German territory. Baden towns Saturday occupied by white and black troops. Situation railwaymen very serious. Offices of the German National Union of Railwaymen ransacked in Mainz. Forty million marks of the railwaymen's contributions stolen by
military forces. The N.U.R. officials expelled and imprisoned without giving reason. German railwaymen in French service have to sign statement in which they agree to the abolition of the 8-hours day and accept the 10-hours day, and pledge themselves to work for French Rhine Republic. I have the documents before me in office whilst I wire.—FIMMEN.
Fimmen is the International Secretary, one of the ablest and most trusted international secretaries in the world. He is not a German; he is a Dutchman; and he took a deputation specially so that we should have first hand information, a deputation which included all nationalities. This telegram has come from him to-day. It is only fair to say, so that Fimmen's position shall not be prejudiced, that Fimmen was the man who publicly in Germany called upon the Social Democrats to deal with the magnets in Germany, who, he said, were getting their money away. He is the man who made the statement that in his judgment 90 per cent. of the taxation of Germany was paid by the workers and that the other people were escaping. He is the man who proved that the German employers were making a profit out of the income tax which they levied upon the workers. He was able to show that whilst they were deducting from the workers' wages every week so many marks, they were not paying it to the Government for six months, and the depreciation of the mark enabled them to make a profit out of the deal. That at least shows that he is some one whose views are at least impartial. He is satisfied as to the danger of the situation and he sends this telegram.
In the last Debate on this subject someone asked, what would Germany have done if she had won? My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) answered by saying that. he did not know. I want to assume for the purpose of argument that the Germans would have done precisely what is described in this telegram. I then ask the House, what would the British railwaymen and the British miners have done? The only way to appreciate the situation fully is not to ask what would Germany have done, but to examine the facts. If the German militarists had come to this country and bad done to the British railwaymen or to the Welsh miners what is now being done by the French to the Germans, what would have been the state
of affairs in this country? As a matter of fact, it is no secret that there have been three parties in Germany for a long time. There have been the Communists on the left, there have been the militarists on the right, and there has been the middle party, called the Social Democrats. I frankly tell the House that I believe the German employers got away with the money and got it away to foreign countries. I believe that is absolutely true, because I have gone into it. But it is a very small sum compared with that we are now considering. But what have the French done in these cases? They have made all these people martyrs, and the whole position in Germany has been consolidated. That is exactly what has happened.
What about the Ruhr railway system? How many of the British public know the facts as to the railway situation at this moment. There was an accident there last week and 22 people were killed. A cordon was at once formed round the place, and no one has been told the real cause of the accident. The accident was caused by the incompetence of the few people with whom the French were trying to work the system. Imagine it for a moment, anyone who knows the Ruhr district, anyone who knows not only the network of railways, but the interlocking and block system, and then read in the French papers that the French propose to send 100,000 railwaymen to the Ruhr to work the railways. It is a joke, and everyone who knows anything about the situation knows that it is impossible. Let us see what has been the French action in the matter. There was a strike in France two years ago. The French railwaymen struck. The Government decided that every striker was not. only to be penalised, but he was never to be employed in railway work again, the reason given being that as he has struck he not only forfeited his right to be a railwayman, but he was unworthy ever to serve France in that capacity again. Two hundred French deputies signed a petition to the French Government in favour of the reinstatement of the men. The Government positively refused, and said the strikers were not fit to be called decent Frenchmen. Four interviews were held with the Prime Minister, all with the same result. But on 2nd February last the French Prime Minister gave a different answer,
and said that so far as the Government was concerned it was now prepared to consider the engagement of the dismissed railwaymen for service in occupied German territory. That is the new situation. Here are people, said to be incompetent in France, traitors to their country, but fit to be used to crush the German workers.
I want to submit to the House that, whatever criticism there may be with regard to our Motion, there ought to be general agreement that we cannot allow the present position to continue. There is no one in any quarter of the House who will not agree with that statement, except perhaps the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), a constituency with which I am familiar. He will know, if he lives longer in Newport, that Newport contributed a large number of people to the War and that if there is any town that is sick of war it is the Borough of Newport. The great mass of Members of this House are satisfied that the position is steadily getting worse in the Ruhr. Apart from this House, the people in the country, people of all parties, are beginning to he genuinely anxious. They can see that we cannot as a nation, either with dignity or with credit continue in the way that we are going. We are entitled to say to the Government tonight, "If you have a better proposal, let us hear what it is. If you can suggest a way whereby a bridge between these two nations can be built, let us know what it is." Lots of criticism is made of the proposal that independent people should negotiate. Yon often find in great industrial disputes both sides anxious for peace, but afraid to speak for fear of being misunderstood. Often they will welcome someone who intervenes in the hope of finding a bridge. If that happens in industrial disputes, how much more important is it to find a bridge in a matter that is of far more terrible consequence?
I hope that the Debate will not close now. It is impossible within the four hours allotted to-day to have ventilated every aspect of the question. I hope, therefore, that the Motion will remain on the Paper, and that a further opportunity will be given to explore this question, because the Government must be as anxious as we are regarding the present situation. I not only support the Motion, but I ask the House, whether
it agrees with the terms of the Motion or not, to keep clearly in mind that it is moved because we believe that the position is so delicate and dangerous that Parliament itself is doing the right and the only thing in debating the matter from time to time.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken did not impress me greatly with the telegram from Mr. Fimmen, because in it, as it was read, there was a statement that the Germans were being asked to work for the Rhine Republic. That certainly is not the policy of the French Government, and I do not see how it could have got into a telegram of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman in his closing words gave, I think, the best proof of the correctness of the statement of the right hon. Member for the combined. English Universities (Mr. Fisher) that hon. Members opposite did not look upon this Motion seriously, but rather as a means of debating the question. I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should not be a Division, but that the Motion be left on the Paper, was the best possible proof on that point.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition with a great deal of interest, and with many of his general observations I was in entire agreement. He told us that there had been three previous Debates on this subject. As a matter of fact, I think this is the fourth Debate. He indicated that the previous Motions, notwithstanding that he had voted on them, were not of much value. This particular Motion, as I hope to show later on, seems to me to have less to recommend it than either of the two previous Motions on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman, in his general remarks, gave a description of the situation in the Ruhr, which I am afraid is pretty nearly accurate, and which everyone must dislike. Everyone would like to see an end put to it. There is no doubt, whatever, I think, that so far, the French have not, gained by their operation in the Ruhr. There has been to them very heavy loss. That is continuing, and what the end of it will be I do not venture to prophesy. But I would venture to point out to the House that the loss is not all on one side, and what has happened is, as I described once
before, that the jugular vein of German industry has been cut. That must be ruinous to Germany, and therefore, it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member said, that whatever the ultimate result may be, what has happened and is happening means that there is immense economic loss, that there is less ability to pay reparation as a result of this operation than there would have been, and certainly there is no one in this House who would not gladly see an end put to that matter. The hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition also said something which I think was very true, and it is the basis of the policy which has so far been followed by His Majesty's Government; it was to the effect that there is no use in the Government attempting to do anything unless there is a public opinion behind it. Every one of these Amendments has aimed at something which at this moment France would look upon, if this House were to pass it, as a hostile act—an act of intervention.
A great deal has been said about the absence of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. It is true that at this moment we have nothing we can propose to the House. It may be that to have no policy is bad, but to have a policy which cannot succeed and which in itself is bad, would be even worse. If there is any fault to be found with the Government on this question, the fault ought to go back to a period earlier than to-day. It ought to go back to what was done in Paris when the break came. There was the test case. Nothing that has happened since—I can say this with truth—differs very greatly from what I feared would happen if the French course were adopted. I not only thought so, but said so in the Conference. If, therefore, the policy that we are carrying out is wrong, that was the time when we ought to have taken another policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] What is the policy which the hon. Members would have had us take? I would like those who disagree with the Government policy to picture to themselves what the alternative was. Do not let anyone suppose that it is a question of M. Poincaré or his Government. It is nothing of the kind. All the evidence which came before us—I knew it was so in London, but it was proved to demonstration in Paris—was that any
French Government with the present French Chambers, would have been bound to adopt a similar policy. It is a- great mistake to suppose that the break really came in Paris. It did not: it began in August of the previous year when the Governments met and could not come to an agreement. It was postponed, but the break was hound to come. I remember that my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister mentioned in his speech the other day that somebody had told him that there had been seventeen bye-elections in France since the Ruhr, and that the Government had lost them all. His informant was very badly informed. There have been no bye-elections at all for the French Chamber of Deputies for -a great many months. Since the Ruhr occupation took place, there has hen one for the Senate, and that was won by a supporter of M. Poincaé.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: The information was wrong.

The PRIME MINISTER: The informant was badly informed. Therefore, whatever one may think as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the course which the French Government are pursuing, there cannot be any doubt in my mind that they are pursuing a course which was not only supported by both Chambers in France, but which is overwhelmingly supported even to-day by the French people. That being so, we had two alternatives before us. I have said before to the House that I thought in Paris, and I think to-day, that the French policy was a great mistake; that it was likely to lead them into harm and lead Europe into harm. If it had been possible for Hs to have stopped them, then I think it would have been our duty to try to do so; but we were satisfied, as I am satisfied to-day, that we could not have stopped them. They were bound to try it. Then we had two alternatives. One was to allow the break to take place with the greatest a-mount of friendly feeling which was possible to France, and the other was to make the break, as could easily have been done, with obvious disapproval, making the two countries practically hostile to each other.
I would like to point out one remark in which I entirely agree, of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). Hon. Gentlemen on those benches who have
spoken have spoken as if all that was necessary was to say to the French that they were wrong. My hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition told us that the altar of war was being prepared again. That is certainly not true of this country. We are weary of war, and I can assure the House that if the line advocated in many of these speeches were adopted, instead of retaining the Entente, we would have to go further than making speeches. We would have to prepare ourselves for the possibility of enforcing our will upon France by war. That seems to be the inevitable result. What can be done? At this moment I am convinced of this. The French Government, for the reasons which I have given—though they are suffering, they know that Germany is suffering more—would deeply resent any attempt at mediation. We could not do it without making an. enemy of France, and this Amendment is a proposal, in another form, as the others were, that there should be mediation. I do not minimise, and I pointed out to M. Poincaé what I believed to be true, that the difference of opinion was not between the two Governments—it would not have been so serious then—but between the peoples of the to o countries. I would not have been in the least opposed to the adoption of the same course which the French have taken if it had been to secure demands which I thought it possible Germany could meet. They could not meet them, and therefore, believing that, I was hound, on behalf of the British Government, to dissociate myself from the French action. Though some hon. Members may forget, the majority of the House, and, I believe, the great majority in this country, do not forget that we fought with the French as allies in the War.

Mr. IRVING: And with the Russians.

The PRIME MINISTER: We did. It would be a great blow, to say the least of it, if what I had hoped would be the basis of our policy, that we should work together with France for the reconstruction of Europe, is to be dropped altogether. That I am sure would be a great blow and I really believe that many of those who have spoken to-day have the same feeling in their hearts. They do not want to quarrel with France if it can
possibly be avoided. Something was said by the leader of the Opposition about proposals for a Europeanbloc in which we would be left out. I do not believe for a moment any French statesman is seriously contemplating any such proposal. I was asked by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) whether or not we still looked upon reparations as something in which we were interested. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said quite plainly the other day, and I repeat it now, that this settlement is a question not for France and Belgium alone, it is a question for Europe, in which we are interested, and in which we shall have to have a say when the time comes.
What more can I say? It is quite true, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that we have had this discussion three times. The policy of the Government cannot change to suit a different Debate every day in the week. It was the same policy in the first Amendment and it is the same policy now. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the policy? "] The policy is that at this moment we do not believe intervention would be of the least use. We believe it would be regarded as hostile by France and we are not prepared to do it. But do not let the House think that the anxiety which this expedition is causing to the House is not shared by the Government. It is shared to the full, because we do realise that—apart from what is obvious to everyone, namely, the great economic waste that is taking place—having once entered upon what I suppose may be called an adventure, it is very difficult for the nation which has undertaken it to find a way out, and I am certain of this, that French statesmen to-day do believe in spite of all that has happened—and I think it is true they have got nothing out of it—that their pressure will have its effect on Germany. That is their view and while they hold that view it is, in my view, useless for us to offer our services.
One word only about the Amendment itself. I said that of all the Amendments, this seemed to be the least practicable. I do not quite understand it. This House is asked to pass a Motion in favour of creating a Committee to discuss these things with Committees from the Chambers in Belgium and France. What would be the result of that? It would be a little like the Council of Action rather enlarged in operation and I am rather
surprised that the Mover should have contemplated that. But it is more than that. The hon. Member has a feeling which, when I sat on that Bench, I shared, that the minority is more likely to be right than the majority. But that is not the principle of democratic Government. The principle of democratic Government is that it is the majority that is right; at least, the majority thinks so. Suppose such a Committee were appointed—it requires a good deal of imagination to suppose it—but suppose it were, it would consist of the majority of this House; that is to say, I suppose it would not be very unlike the Government. And if you carry it a little further, what sort of a reception does the hon. Member think this Motion would get in the French Assembly? Is it going to be tried? [An HON. MEMBER: "That depends on you!"] Oh, no, it does not depend on us. It is not we who are in the Ruhr, and I should have thought the right place to try the Motion first was in the French House of Representatives. I think we can imagine the reception it would get there. Then we come to Belgium. The hon. Member read a letter from M. Vandervelde, whom I remember well in the War, and who is the leader of the Socialist party there. It is not giving anything away if I say that after the Conference in Paris the gossip was that M. Theunis, the Belgian Prime Minister, was going back to fall. Well, he did not fall, and I expect the reason why he did not fall was that the Belgian Chamber rather liked the operation in the Ruhr, and approved of it for the time being. In these circumstances, I think that the right hon. Member is right in suggesting that it is not worth dividing on this Motion. I do not think that it is, and if there is a Division, I hope the majority against the Motion will be a large one.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I was surprised to hear so many speakers on the opposite side of the House, and the right hon. Member who sits for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), speaking so pessimistically of the situation with regard to the relations existing between Britain and France. I had thought, having regard to the little homily that was administered, I presume, to myself by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day concerning the dominance of love and justice and truth, and of these virtues
that appeal to the people who govern the affairs of this country—and surely to those who govern the affairs of a country so long allied with this country—that it would be inconceivable that such a state of affairs could arise as a war between Britain and France, and yet it has been quite apparent here to-night that there is an imminent peril of war between the French Government and the British Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It may appear to he rubbish, but in that event it is difficult to understand the significance of some of the very pessimistic speeches made by people who should have authority. When we come to face that situation, we realise what a chaotic situation Europe is entering upon at the present time. It is quite evident that Europe has reached that state when it is impossible for it to stabilise upon the existing capitalist basis. We have now had the most brilliant statesmen of western civilisation—some of them on this side of the House, below the Gangway, some of them on that side of the House, some in France. Germany, and other countries—wrestling with this problem, assisted by all the best of the executives and administrators who have been instructed in their profession for many long years, with all the experience of the past at their disposal, and they are as far from a solution of the problem as they were in 1918.
I was surprised to hear from the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) a statement about the new policy of France I do not myself think that he believes that the policy of France is in any sense new, any more than the policy of Britain to-day is in any sense different fundamentally from the principle which British statecraft has pursued for at least three centuries. France has been definitely pursuing, whenever she has been militarily and diplomatically strong enough, the policy of obtaining supremacy in Europe, and she is merely carrying a stage further that process which she initiated once again after the check at Fashoda. She has used—and from the standpoint of French capitalism she has rightly used—the disagreement of Germany and Britain for the purpose of putting them out of business. The British Government, from the standpoint of British capitalism, is acting perfectly right in allowing France to go to perdition, as she is at the present time.
From the standpoint of justice, well, we would have to inquire what justice is, whether it is justice as understood by the owning class or justice as understood by the under-dog. If it be a question of truth and so forth, we should again have to examine into the nature of these fundamentals. But from the standpoint ofbourgeois society, France's policy has nothing to complain of that you on this side can possibly complain of in Britain.
Britain's policy is worked out in her interest, France's policy in hers, and Germany's policy in hers. They are carrying out the policy ofbourgeois society. They will continue to go on with this policy. They may, and I believe that they will, before very long have in Europe, in the world, another war. I hope that, when that time comes, all the people who to-day ace criticising France will be the first to join up, end that they will not merely content themselves with appearing on the recruiting platform sending letters to the mayors of cities whilst not themselves appearing on recruiting platforms, 1Deeause, whatever may be the attitude of the Front Bench of the Labour party, there are others in this country who, when that times conies, are not going to hesitate for a single minute to tell the workers of this country, whether under arms or about to be put under arms, that it is their duty in no circumstances whatsoever to fight in the interests of capitalism against the workers of other countries. That is going to he the attitude of the Communist party, and it will be the attitude of very large sections of the Labour movement as well. The sooner we realise that that situation is developing in Europe the better, because it is necessary to-day mot merely to be consulting, not merely to be having conferences, hut to he having action.
I should like to see the Labour party—if it be in order in the House of Commons to allude to the existence of parties; I thought, as a matter of fact, there were no such things as parties here, but that we represented our constituents—doing something in this matter of the Ruhr. When I see the Resolution, however, standing in the name of three, Members of the Labour party, it strikes me as somewhat of a curious Resolution, to stand in the name of Members of the Labour party, because it concerns itself
with two main problems, both of which are of primary importance to the existing capitalist system. The two questions are security and reparations. Security for whom? For the working class against the capitalist class? No. Security for France against Germany, and we have had the interesting admission from one of the leaders of the London International that he is prepared for giving guarantees to France against Germany. It is a very interesting admission.
It is like the suggestion in the whole of this extraordinary Resolution, put forward on behalf of the Internationals of London, Vienna, and Amsterdam, to call into congress France, Belgium, and Britain—the elect of the earth, and nobody else. There is no mention of Italy. There is no mention of Holland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Russia."] There is no mention of Poland. There is no mention of Czechoslovakia. They arc all countries which, both from the standpoint of production and from the standpoint of markets for the materials produced on the Ruhr, are intimately affected by this problem. It may be said that Holland did not actively participate in the War, but there is no country which is more affected by the economy of the Ruhr than is Holland. If anyone visits the Rhineland and goes down to the great harbour at Ruhrort, he will probably see more ships flying the Dutch flag than he will see flying the flag of Belgium or of France, and many more than he will see flying the flag of Britain. Holland has a perfect right to be taken into this consultation —ought to be taken into this consultation—even from the standpoints of the quasi-internationalists on the Front Bench. Surely, if there is a country which is affected and which should be considered, it is a country like Holland.
There are others. I know that it is always anticipated that there should be one man in the House who is interested in the country which has the greatest area of any country in Europe. It is strange that there should be only one person who seems to be concerned with Russia. Russia is concerned, and Russia will make herself effectively concerned. There is no doubt of this, that Russia has no intention of being left out of consideration in the matter of the Ruhr any more than in the question of the Straits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you a Russian?"]
8.0 P.M.
The sooner hon. Members opposite, some of whom cannot trace their English pedigree more than a century back without landing in the Frankfort Ghetto, realise that Russia to-day, while she is relatively weak, is returning rapidly to that position of naval and military efficiency which she occupied during the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, the better. She is determined that she will have her share and that she will have her part. She has, however, offered to disarm. She is building no battleships that are of any effective capacity. In that respect she is wiser than some people nearer home, but Russia will be driven just as much by any attempt to overlook her in the matter of the Ruhr to intervene in Europe, as she was on the question of the Straits at Lausanne, and the sooner that is realised the better, for behind Germany there is well known to be a Power which is friendly to all Powers whose people are subjected to the bond-holding and banking influence. There is to-day in the world a real friend of small nationalities. There is a country which stands for the dispossessed, and in Germany to-day the workers are looking to the Russian people. I am glad to say that, as a result of this Motion, tabulated in the names of members of the Labour party, more attention will in future be given by the workers of the Ruhr, or the workers of Germany as a whole, to the Communist International, than will be given to the other three internationals put together. By means like this, the Labour party is driving the workers of Europe into the hands of the Communist International, just in the same way that this Government and the last Government have been driving the workers of Europe steadily along the road they do not wish to travel—the road of revolution—but which they will have to travel, because there is no other road out. You will have to realise these facts sooner or later. It does not very much matter to the Communist International whether you face them to-day or to-morrow. In some ways we would rather you faced them later, because then you will have given us longer time to prepare.
To come closer to the question raised in this Motion, I notice that the Labour
party have decided in this matter to have a united front— not the united working-class front. They are pleading, as usual, with their class enemy to obtain and to build up committees in which all parties shall collaborate, but not all over the world. They will not include the Indian workers. They will not include the Egyptian workers. They will not include the workers of the subject lands. They will just include the elect, the workers of Britain, of France, and of Belgium, together with the capitalists of those respective countries. These are the people with whom the three quasi-working-class internationals desire to co-operate. We are very pleased indeed, from the standpoint of working-class internationalism, to see that while the Labour party have no intention of attending the international conference called by the shop stewards of the Ruhr, to take place on the 18th March; while they would not respond to the invitation of the Communist International to come together in Berlin at the end of January; while they would not take any effective action in those directions; while they would not consider a matter of an international strike, partly because one section of them resort entirely to Parliamentary action, and the other section resort to it merely because they realise that their leadership of the unions has taken those unions to a position today in which theirmoral is impossible, and they cannot fight—the Labour party, nevertheless, to-day are presenting a Resolution of this character. It is a demonstration upon a great public platform. It will not do anything to bring the French out of the Ruhr. It is not intended to do anything directly to bring the French out of the Ruhr. It is intended merely to save the faces of the leaders of these three internationals in the face of the workers of Europe.
Again, when we come to notice the kind of thing which the Leader of the Labour party proposes in this conference of the various Parliaments, we find that among the first things they should consider is, not the safeguarding of the eight-hours day, or the workers' wages, or the workers' position, or the rights of the workers to organise, free from the interference of the German military police—because that is what they are—free from the interference in France of the Fascisti movement. It is not to do any of those things. An international which has its
home in London, like the international which has its home in Amsterdam, naturally thinks in terms of loans, and the hon. Member for Aberavon and the right hon. Member for Derby think in terms that appeal to the international banking fraternity. They realise that I am doing what I can for them to-day, to clear them from the insinuation that they are revolutionary. I recommend them to the capitalist class of this country as quite safe. They are quite safe, but the movement behind them, unfortunately, is not. We desire to see them in office as quickly as possible, and anything that I can do, anything that my party can do, as it has done it at Mitcham and at Edgehill, where we sent our speakers to tell the workers to vote for the Labour party—anything that we can do to get the Labour party on those benches, and the capitalist representatives off those benches, we shall do. We wish to see the Labour party in office, because we want to see them there demonstrating whether parliamentary institutions are of any utility. Then when we come to the second stage to discover whether—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting a long way from the Motion.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I thought that if I wandered far from the subject T should be sure of the assistance of the Chair in bringing me back. I will, however, say in conclusion that the Motion is excellent propaganda from the standpoint of the Communists. The more the Labour party tries to fit into the framework of capitalistic society, the more it gets the nodding acquiescence of the leaders of the Government, the more it gets "Hear, hears!" and plaudits from the Treasury Bench, the more do the enlightened workers realise what the contradictions between the leaders of the Labour party and the rank and file of the Labour party really are.

Mr. HARDIE: In the short time at my disposal I shall he quite able to say exactly what I want to say. The Prime Minister spoke very sincerely about having cut the commercial jugular vein of Germany, but one thing he did not tell this House was what effect that was having upon his own City of Glasgow and other parts of Great Britain. He did not stop for a moment even to consider what was the effect of cutting that
great jugular vein. In his own city to-day there is the question of metallurgical coke. It means not only the shutting down of blast furnaces, but from one of his own Ministers to-day, in reply to a question, we were told that there are 2,500 ovens in this country not in use. If there had been logic in the Prime Minister's statement, he would have been able to show that, while he as Prime Minister of this country helped to cut the great commercial jugular vein of Germany, we as well as France would have been reaping some benefit. But even France in the cutting of that jugular vein has shut down, not only her own blast furnaces, but also her coking ovens. The cutting of that jugular vein, unless you take steps to get the best doctors you can to stop the bleeding, is going to bleed this country in the same way as it has bled Germany to-day, and the whole consequences will fall upon this country in the next six months.

It being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD
(By Order.)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — MOTHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, pensions adequate for the proper upbringing and maintenance of children should be paid to all widows with children or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law.
I have the greatest possible pleasure in moving this Resolution. I would remind the House that on 8th April, 1919, a similar Resolution to this was moved for the first time by a Member of the Labour party; and, if I were addicted to superstition, I might very well imagine that Fate had determined the
issue, for the Motion then was moved by my predecessor (the late Mr. Tyson Wilson) in the representation of the West Houghton Division. There is a peculiar interest, so far as I am concerned, in a Motion of this kind, because several years ago, within a few years of each other, there were buried in two small cemeteries in the heart of my division close on 200 men killed in two colliery explosions. The effect of these and other colliery explosions remains to-day, not only in my own constituency, but in other mining divisions of this country. If it were necessary to plead the cause of the widow and the fatherless child, one need hardly say more than this: that of all the tragedies that afflict the human race, there is none more terrible than the case of the widow of 30 to 35 years of age left to fight the battle of life with three, four or five little ones to maintain. Unfortunately for her, she has to battle with poverty, and in most cases poverty wins the day and she goes down in the struggle.
We do not claim that there ought to be a pension in respect of every child born of every woman. This is not in the least a plea that the woman should be endowed simply because she is a mother. The claim is that when a woman is left bereft of her husband, and she has children to maintain, that the State should take over the responsibility hitherto held by the father, and give assistance to the widowed mother to maintain her fatherless children. We want this House of Commons to adopt this point of view: that a good mother is better than a thousand schoolmasters; that a decent home is superior to the best-managed Poor Law institution in the land; that the widowed mother, however poor a manager she may be in her home, is a better guardian of her children than the most intelligent and hest-intentioned board of guardians that ever existed. That is our plea.
This is not the first time, as I intimated, that this Motion has come before the House. Possibly it will not be the last time; but, however long it may take to argue the case of these poor, unfortunate folk—it may be 10 or 20 years before the State accepts its responsibility—so far as some of us are concerned, we shall still fight on until we win. If I wanted
evidence to lay before the House of a desire for this reform, I need not go very far. Practically every woman's organisation in the land, not only Labour organisations, but other women's organisations of all political colours, have supported this Motion. More than that, there are responsible local authorities, boards of guardians, town councils, and, I believe, county councils, and other equally important authorities have supported this idea. I shall be able to prove before I conclude that our proposals, instead, as is imagined by some, being likely to cost more, they will be more economical in dealing with the problem of the fatherless child.
What happens to the widow? Let us look at the case for a moment or two. Her husband might be employed in a colliery or on the railway. If he dies a violent death through an accident, the widow is entitled to workmen's compensation, a very small amount, I admit. It looks a lot when she gets it in a lump sum, and unfortunately she accepts that too often. But the widow of the man who dies from natural causes gets nothing. There is nothing that has made my heart more sick than seeing a widow, a woman who once upon a time lived in a decent cottage, had good furniture and a comfortable home, when she loses her husband from natural causes becoming too often the prey of the exploiter. What happens? She does sewing, sharing, office-cleaning, and then, strange to say, when she goes to the board of guardians for relief for herself and children this sort of thing happens: A woman not far from the doorsteps of this House of Commons with eight children went to the board of guardians less than 12 months ago and the reply of the board of guardians to her was this: We will take your three youngest children away to institutions controlled by the board in order that you may go out to work to maintain the others. That sort of thing must come to an end once and for all.
We prate about our Christianity, and we sing on Sundays
When wilt Thou save the people?
Here, in my view, is a chance to put a little of our Christian sentiment into practice by helping the widow and her fatherless children. There is a new type of case to which I want to refer. Prior
to the War, we only had widows whose husbands had died from natural causes. Since the War this has transpired in thousands of cases, and hon. Members on both sides will, I feel sure, be able to quote similar cases. I need no better or more eloquent appeal in this connection than to read a letter that has been submitted to me; it is only one out of hundreds that have been sent to me since my Motion appeared on the Order Paper. It is a woman whose husband served in the Forces. He came back damaged and bruised after having served in the War. When he came back he returned to his usual occupation and followed it for some time. He fell ill and was attended to by the panel doctor, and later on died suddenly. Since his death the widow has appealed to the Pensions Minister and she has received the usual official reply that his death was not attributable to War service. She writes:
My husband joined up in 1915. He was never ill before going into the Army, he was in Egypt for three years and died suddenly seven months after demobilisation. He did Ids hit and his best in his country's time of need and all I have now by way of compensation is two medals. I am left with tour young children, the eldest is 12, the other nine, one seven and a half and a fourth six years of age. My husband left a. good job to join the forces and when he was serving I was allowed a superannuation allowance, a civil liabilities allowance and a grant from his employers. Now that he is dead I have not one penny except that which I work for. My husband never ailed before he joined up, but afterwards he was always complaining. I spent all my savings and have to do sewing when I can get it, often working right on beyond midnight.
That illustrates the type of case which I mentioned a moment ago.
I wish the House to understand this question from another point of view. It is often asked by those who oppose Motions of this kind why does the workman not save in order that there may be something left for the widow and children when he dies? Let me ask what saving is possible to-day in any working class home, not only in England, hut, so far as I understand, in any part of Europe? What thrift of any kind can there be in the ease of a workman and his wife bringing little children into the world? What is the problem that confronts us? In 1922 there were 66,755 widows with 142,000 children receiving Poor Law relief. Of those children, 7,405
were in institutions, and 134,610 were receiving outdoor relief.
I shall probably be asked, Where is the money to come from to deal with this problem? That is the sort of question that is put to us, and, strangely enough, the very people who put that question when we are dealing with human problems are generally the very persons who never utter a word of protest when we are proposing to spend £14,000,000 upon two new battleships. The question of proper provision for the widows and fatherless children is much more urgent than the building of battleships. At the present time there are 9,782 boarded-nut children at a cost of 10s. 6d. per week, and these are costing the country £266,020 per annum. I want hon. Members to notice the average cost of keeping these children in Poor Law institutions, because our argument is that the mother can not only look after her children better than the hoard of guardians, she can do it more effectively and cheaper than the best managed institution in the land. There are, as already stated, 7,405 children of widows in institutions costing 17s. 6d. each; the total annual amount spent in respect of them is£673,855. The total annual sum spent on all the widows and the fatherless children in receipt of Poor Law relief and institutional treatment runs into £3,466,659. I think it ought. to be made clear that what we require the State to do is to deal with widowed mothers with dependent children exactly on the same lines as the State now deals with the widows and fatherless children of the men who died in the War. I have never been able to understand why a man, for instance, from my Division if you like, who was a coalminer, who joined the Army, but never perhaps went beyond the shores of this country, but who died in khaki and probably never fired a shot, but merely because he was a member of His Majesty's Forces the State takes some responsibility for his widow and children. I have always held that there is no duty that a man could ever perform of greater value to the State than that of being a miner, a bricklayer, a farm labourer, or anything else of that kind; and we shall not be satisfied on these benches until the man is dealt with as generously by the State in his capacity as a worker as he is when he dons khaki or wears a naval uniform.
I believe the widow of a private who died whilst serving in His Majesty's Forces is entitled to 20s. a week for herself and 7s. 6d. per child. If we could secure for all the widows for whom I am speaking terms of that kind some of us would be highly delighted.
I have spent some time as a Member of the Manchester education authority, and I have sat on committees in some of our poorest districts compelled to judge poor widows brought before us simply because they have neglected to send their children regularly to school. I have heard cases of this kind argued. A woman informs the committee that she gets up at 6 o'clock in the morning, she calls her little ones of very tender years at an early hour in order that. they might keep awake, prepare their own breakfast, and go to school. Invariably in cases of that kind what happens is that the little ones forget about their breakfast and the school, and roam about the streets learning all the bad things that can be learned in a big city, and in the end some of them are brought before the police courts and sent to Borstal institutions and reformatory schools. There is ample evidence, not only in America, where mothers' pensions have been paid for a long time, but in this country, that the percentage of fatherless children proceeding to the police courts, Borstal institutions, and reformatory schools is higher than from other types of families. When I am told that the cost of a proposal of this kind will be enormous—I think the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would involve a sum of £50,000,000 a year—may I reply that I shall hope to prove it will not cost £20,000,000 a year?
I am at the moment concerned about these children of widowed mothers, who roam about the streets of our great cities, and ultimately find themselves in the police courts. I would like to ask hon. Members to follow me in finding out what it costs to maintain those. I placed a question on the Order Paper the ether night in order to secure this information It costs to keep each convict in this land about £2 2s. 6d. per week—more than the weekly wage of a miner in my Division. For all prisoners in local prisons the cost is £1 10s. per week; for preventive detention prisons £4 6s. 6d. per week, and for Borstal institutions,
where these youngsters go because they have not had the care of a mother or father, it costs £2 2s. 10d. per week. The average cost for inmates of reformatory or industrial schools is 25s. per week. We are wasting the money of the community and the substance of the nation by building these institutions and spending from 25s. to 86s. per week, in some cases, on the maintenance of the inmates, whereas if we gave the widowed mother part of the money to keep her little home going, it would prevent some of them, by the care and education she would be able to give, from landing themselves into any of these places. We protest very emphatically against the notion which has grown up in this and other countries that all we have to do is to allow society to develop anyhow, and if anything goes wrong, to build institutions to deal with the results. We have built workhouses, sanatoria and asylums, whereas if we understood the problem of human society better we should spend the money now devoted to these institutions upon clearing slums and building decent homes for the people, with the result that our national expenditure would be considerably less.
I must refer to what is happening in other countries in this connection. I apprehend there will be some criticism regarding the administration of mothers' pensions in the United States. I should like to mention that since the last Debate on this subject in this House there has been great progress made in this matter within the British Empire. Mothers' pensions became the law in New Zealand in January, 1912, and pensions are provided for widows and dependent children under fourteen. The whole of the expense is borne by the State and the payments are made monthly through the Post Office. In 1919–20 the cost was £185,968. The Danish law became operative in January, 1914, it goes a step further, and is more generous; half the expense in Denmark is borne by the State and the remainder by the Commune in which the widow lives. There are forty States and two territories of the United States that have adopted mothers' pensions. There are only eight States in the whole of that great Continent that do not now pay mothers' pensions. The information I have is very valuable to those who are interested in the subject. I only want to
mention, however, in regard to the administration of mothers' pensions in the United States, that whatever criticisms may be levelled against it, the reports of all the people connected with police courts and prisons, reform work and social services are to the effect that since mothers' pensions have been paid there has been less crime amongst juveniles and that the whole country is better off owing to the fact that things are administered cheaper and better than hitherto.
I am not satisfied to see other countries in advance of our own. We are told sometimes that hon. Members on these benches care very little for their own country; that we are internationalists. I am very jealous of our good name. I dislike to read at any time that any other country does better, particularly for the little ones, than we are doing. I must mention something further with regard to what is done in the British Empire, because there may be people in this House and outside who will not be willing to be convinced merely because America and Denmark have adopted a proposal of this kind. Mothers' pensions are now paid within the British Empire in five out of nine Canadian Provinces; in the Union of South Africa, in four out of five States in Australia, and, as stated, in New Zealand. The age qualification in the United States ranges from 14 to 17. There is another and a very good qualification, that where a child is found to be totally crippled or mentally defective the age limit is higher and the State takes considerable responsibility for all children afflicted in that way. The largest amount of pension for a widowed mother was paid in the State of Illinois in September, 1921, when a widow with eight dependent children received the equivalent in our money of £34 for four weeks. That, I think, is indicative that the American people at any rate are paying more attention to this important problem than our own people have done.
Turning to the question of cost, in 1911 there were in this country 1,200,000 widows under the age of 70. Out of that number 900,000 belonged to the industrial classes and 300,000 were in employment. Out of the gross total 400,000 had children under 16 years of age. It may be interesting to note that at the end of January, 1923, there were approximately 124,000 widows and mothers in receipt of War pensions
and 325,000 fatherless children receiving allowances through the Ministry of Pensions. In order to understand this problem, I have secured further information at the only point at which analysis has been made from the 1921 census regarding widows. It refers to London alone. According to that census there were in London 223,615 widows. The children under 14 in the same area whose fathers were dead numbered 80,094. There were 21,533 whose mothers were dead, and 4,151 who had lost both parents by death. These figures are indicative of the position up to date.
I come now to my final point, namely, the cost. The 1911 census showed that there were 170,000 widows under 45 years of age, and for our purpose we need have no regard at the moment to those widows who are not within this limit of age. That, of course, will probably be obvious to hon. Members throughout the House. We have computed that there will be about 50,000 childless and widows whose incomes are such that they would not be a charge on the State if the proposal contained in our Motion ever became law. According to our figures as thus reduced, there cannot be more than 120,000 widows in this country, outside War widows, and the number of children dependent upon them is approximately 250,000. We relieve, at the moment, about 67,000 husbandless women, with 142,000 dependent children, at a cost of £3,500,000. There are, therefore, according to our estimate, about 53,000 widows and 108,000 children to be provided for. To place 120,000 widows and 250,000 fatherless children on a pension scheme similar to the War pensions provision would cost, in our view, somewhere between £13,000,000 and £18,000,000 per annum. That is the cost on the one side, but if we take into account what the State and the municipalities and the Poor Law authorities would save, we argue that the total cost would not be more than from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 per annum. New Zealand pays at the moment 7s. 6d. for each child and 7s. 6d. for the mother, and the total cost to New Zealand is below £200,000 per annum. On that basis, and on our population, the estimate of cost for this country would not be more than £7,000,000 per annum.
I have now come nearly to the end of my argument, but there is one thing that impresses itself on my mind. I stated at the commencement that there was no
tragedy that I knew of more terrible than the tragedy of the widow from 30 to 40 years of age who was left with four, five or six children to maintain. She faces the struggle alone, and I know of nothing much more terrible than that. The poets have sung of the soldier's valour, the admiral's deeds, and the capacity of the captains of industry, but no one, somehow or other, has ever deemed it fit to sing or say much about this problem. It is more urgent to-clay than ever; the struggle is greater; and, if I wanted, I could quote a great statesman who once said, "If the world were put into one scale and my mother into the other, the world would soon kick the beam." I think that expresses the sentiment of every decent man and woman about their mother. Some men set forth into the world in search of wealth, which, when they secure it, they spend prodigally. Others go forth in search of power, and when they achieve it may use it mercilessly. For my part, I shall feel quite satisfied if I have done something to-night to try to secure for the widow and the fatherless child the generous care of the State.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to second the Motion.
I well recollect the Debate that took place in this House four years ago. I do not remember one speech on that occasion that was against the Motion, and yet it was talked out. I am sure that, if the Government to-night keep off the Whips and leave Members to act in accordance with their own conscience, or as their constituents desire that they should vote, this Motion will be carried by a similar majority to that with which a Bill passed through the House last Friday. This is a new Parliament, and many Members have come from distant constituencies. I have no doubt they have felt by now the sacrifice they are making in what they believe to be the national interest—the sacrifice of home comforts an d the company of their families. Their families, however, are not in fear of the spectre of poverty, but the case of widows with children is different. They have always a haunting fear. My hon. Friend has said that there would be something like 120,000 who would come within the scope of this Motion. Can we measure, even with the
greatest stretch of imagination, what the circumstances are in those homes? We have an opportunity to-night, in voting for this Motion, to give hope and encouragement in many of those homes.
The pensions that we seek in this Motion we seek as a matter of right. We wish the woman to be able to go and receive her pension, not as she now receives Poor Law relief, but that she shall retain her freedom and her independence. The pension should be adequate to the needs of the family, and no child should suffer simply because it has lost, through death, its father. The position to-day is different from that. Widows must either go out to work or must go to the Poor Law. Their homes are far from what we think of as the ideal home. What is a good home? In my opinion a good home is one where the father is in decent employment, with decent wages, and has security, and where the wife is healthy and able to care for and look after the home. But what is home without children? In my opinion it must be a most desolate place. When I am at home —which is not very often, as I am here all the week—and my family have gone out., before very long I am saying to my wife, "Fetch someone in," because I feel that I am, so to speak, dead without the children who are such a blessing and help to make the home worth living in, Despite unemployment, with all its suffering, and the lack of houses, of which hundreds of thousands are needed in order to provide homes for those who wish to make them—and this seems to be the ditch into which the Government have dropped, and from which I hope they will soon extricate themselves in the interests of the people who want homes—there are thousands of good homes in our land. I saw an advertisement the other day by people who had furniture to sell. They pictured a neatly furnished home with a young man and his wife proudly looking on their first-born child, and underneath the picture were these words
Their gracious home, their cheerful looks express
Life's greatest boon of wedded happiness.
But this picture may be spoilt. Ill-health, disease, accident may come to the father, and then we see a different picture of home. The picture of the position of the widow is one of despair, but she faces the struggle. There is nothing, I believe,
that a mother will not do for her children. I do not believe there is anything in this world like a mother's love. Once lost it may never be replaced. For a time she struggles and tries to maintain the home. Kind friends render assistance, and it is pleasant to remember and to know that there are many kind people in the world. But charity is not enduring, and then the mother must seek assistance elsewhere. I have spent all my leisure time, before I came into this House, in local government work, some years of which have been in connection with the Poor Law, and I have seen many of these widows as they have come before relief committees and stated their case and made their plea. May I give one typical case? A young woman, whom I have known from a child, was left with five children. I urged her to go to the Poor Law to secure relief, but she was in fear of it, as many women are in fear to-day. After she left the committee room, she said to me: "I shall not often come here. As soon as ever I can get out of this position I shall be out of it." Talk about the sanctity of the home! We are not maintaining the sanctity of the home when we are driving young women, for the sake of bread and butter for their children, to make materialistic marriages, as many are having to do to-day.
9.0 P.M.
But it is not only the Poor Law. The woman may struggle still, because the Poor Law relief will not give her every thing which is necessary for her children. She struggles and she fails in the attempt and is carried away. The children then may be sent to an institution. Many Members of this House have some knowledge of institutions. Some are good, some are bad, some arc very indifferent, but it is automatic machinery that controls institutions. You never heard hearty laughter in an institution. You never heard a lullaby sung in an institution. There is no soft-voiced mother there. I once heard the late Mr. Will Crooks say if he went into a playground where children from cottage homes were attending and children from institutions, he could pick out every child that came from an institution. There is a fear even among the children in going back to their institution. There is never after in the child in meeting its own mother, if she is a mother. We suggest that this is a
Motion which the House might accept. It is most economical, as my lion. Friend has shown. It is humanitarian. It is the Christian idea, and I know that if adopted it will not cost the sum that we may possibly be told from the Government Benches. The saving which has been shown in Poor Law relief will take place in the case of institutions and in the many other ways that we have to-day is a great work. But the greatest saving will be in the guarantee to the mothers that they will be able to bring up healthy, strong, tender, lovable boys and girls. What has been done in America by Judge Neil, one of the greatest men we know of this century, what has been done by the American States and by our Colonies, ought to be done by our own people. I urge that the House should pass this Motion and give hope and encouragement of a change from the sort of thing that we have at this lime. There is no question so important as the care of human life, and particularly of child life. If we pass this Resolution—and I appeal to the Government to accept it, or at least to leave Members free to vote—I am satisfied that we shall lay the foundation of a better national life than we have at present.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Mover and Seconder, particularly the Mover, have given the House every reason for passing the Motion. I cannot speak with the floridness of hon. Members opposite, because I have been taught to appeal more to the reason than to the hearts of men it is quite natural, because I take it for granted that people in all classes have the same kind of hearts. I have never been able to classify virtues and vices like some hon. Members opposite seem so ready to do. I think the same things belong to all classes and sections of the community. We have, to look on this not only from the human point of view, but from the State point of view. Anyone who has had anything to do with these widows could simply break the heart of the House of Commons with stories of their sorry plight. The four chief causes of undeserved poverty are old age, sickness, unemployment and widowhood. Widowhood is the only one now left to be dealt with haphazardly by the Poor Law. Old age, sickness and unemployment are now dealt with by insurance. It is impossible to make provision for widows by those means. Not one of
the greatest friendly societies has ever attempted to provide pensions for widows. It is perfectly amazing, when one looks at this question, long before the War, how it came about that the question of widows' pensions was not a burning question. The only thing that I can put it down to is that men only had the vote. I say, with all due respect to men, that if the women had had anything to do with the running of the country they would have seen long ago, as a national economy, that the country could not afford to allow young widows with families of from two, three, four and up to eight children to go on in the way they have been going.
I will not appeal to the heart of the House, but I want to appeal to their reason. I will read one letter out of hundreds that any hon. Member will get who is interested in this subject. I received a letter from a woman:
When I came out to work this morning I left my little girl crying. She had headache. There was no time to see what was the matter, as we are always confronted with the bugbear of getting the sack. Can you wonder if one gets weary of the struggle, when for the sake of a few shillings we could stay at home and bring up our children ourselves? I know what I am talking about as I have been a widow for nearly seven years, being left with a girl under two and a boy three and a half years. I went back to work when my husband died, but what did it mean? Children pulled out of bed and taken through the streets, half asleep, standing at a bench ironing all day, wondering bow the kiddies are going on. Place to keep clean. Washing, mending to do, kiddies to keep clean, clothes to make, as I used to make all their little garments, and I have never troubled the guardians once, and. please God, never shall. I know that things are very bad in the country, but surely it would he better to allow us a small pension, the same as the soldiers' widows, and let us bring up our children as we should, instead of leaving them to strangers.
We so often hear nowadays in this House about the sanctity of the home. We are told about the terror of socialistic schools. If more children were properly brought up at home there would not be so many socialistic schools. [Interruption.] I am doubtful about that, but do not let us quarrel as to it now. The Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1909 condemned, both in the Majority and Minority Reports, the conditions of widows with children, even those
getting out-relief. The physical conditions compared unfavourably in almost every way with ordinary children attending elementary schools. The out-relief boy of 14 was very little heavier than the average boy of 11. The out-relief girl of 14 was usually a weedy slip. A large number suffered from glands, bad teeth, eyes, ears, &c. There was a low standard of intelligence in a large proportion due to under nourishment. How much worse must be the condition of the enormous number of those who try to struggle on without relief. There are hundreds and thousands who are doing it. I have had a letter from one woman who said:
I went as long as I could without applying for relief, and then I saw that it was for my children that I had to do it. The woman living opposite to me is too proud to do it, and the consequence is that her children are suffering more.
Let us take the money side of it. I know it will be said: "We feel it in our hearts, and our hearts are with you, but how are we to raise the money?" The Chancellor of Exchequer gives the figure of the estimated cost at £50,000,000: but I think he has included a lot of people whom we are not asking him to include. We do not ask for the inclusion of unmarried mothers, because in their cases there is a father somewhere who ought to shoulder his half of the responsibility. We do not ask for relief for deserted wives, because of the danger of collusion. Official figures in my possession show that the real cost of giving these pensions, on the war pensions scale, would be much less than is suggested. I have worked it out, and believe it would come to about £29,000,000 at the outside, and that is without deducting what is already spent by the Poor Law on widows and children.
On the other hand, there is something that we cannot get from statistics. We cannot get the statistics of the real danger to the community. The Mover of the Resolution spoke about the Borstal system. Anyone who has had anything to do with juvenile offenders realises how many of them are brought up away from home. The State depends on the moral and physical strength of its people. Any human being who knows anything about children knows that a mother is far and away the best influence in the world for children. I believe that this side of the House has more courage in speaking about these questions. [HON. MEMBERS:
"No!"] Well, all parties are agreed about these matters, but some have the courage to say what others are thinking. I feel very keenly on the question of women, and I know that there are men in this House who were returned through saying that they were keen in regard to women's questions, and when they come here they will vote but they will not fight. My die-hards and dug-outs are quite candid. They say, quite candidly, that the woman's place is in the home.
I ask the House to give a chance to the women of the country. I do not think that there is any more pitiable case, or anybody who suffers more, than the widow struggling to bring up young children. I know how difficult it is to leave my children, with every care. I cannot conceive of any greater misery than leaving my children with no care. That is a thing that only a mother can feel. Fathers may feel it dimly, but if they had had imagination we should have had widows' pensions long ago. We ought to realise the terrible sufferings that are borne by so many of these splendid women throughout the. country, women who are too proud to go to the Poor Law, and who go on working until finally they break down, and they sink lower.
We were told during the War that we could not afford to have a C3 population. We cannot afford to have it now. We have to meet an enemy almost as dangerous as the Germans were in war. We have to meet the enemy of world competition, and the only way we shall be able to meet that enemy effectively is by having a strong, virile nation. I appeal to the Government, if they cannot go the whole way and grant pensions to widows on the lines of pensions to war widows, to let us try the New Zealand plan. The Mover of the Resolution said that that would cost from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. I do not believe we should have any great difficulty in raising £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. If the electors were organised and they agitated for something that would cost no more than £10,000,000, we could get it from any Government. I beg of the Minister in charge to lend a sympathetic ear to our appeal, and to look at the matter, not simply from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, but from the point of view of the kind of nation we want, and I ask him to realise that the best
citizens that the nation can have are citizens who have been brought up by their mother's side.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: I am very glad that in this, my first intervention in the Debates of this House, I should have the opportunity of supporting the Motion which has been so eloquently submitted by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies). The justice of this Motion seems to be universally recognised, and the whole question now resolves itself into one of cost. As the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has stated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the opinion that the cost of the proposed reform will amount to £50,000,000 per annum. We who believe in the principle of mothers' pensions are entitled to ask what is the actuarial basis which enables the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to that conclusion? Who, for instance, would receive the benefit? Would all mothers receive the pension, regardless of the income which they might possess? What would be the scale of benefits, and at what age would it be expected that the children would be able to take care of themselves?
We should pause to consider this matter a little more seriously, as we might be inclined to dismiss the proposal lightheartedly by having an exaggerated idea of the actual cost to the State. In 1903 it would have been easy for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to proclaim to the country that the cost of giving old age pensions would have amounted to £212,000,000 per annum. We should have stood aghast at the contemplation of that figure which might have ruled out old age pensions from practical politics. Yet we know that such a statement could have been made without exaggeration, as it would have cost the nation about £212,000,000 to provide a pension of about £1 per week for everyone at the age of 60. We all know that last year the cost of old age pensions in this country amounted to £22,500,000, and that when they were first instituted the cost was only £7,500,000. I think that the Treasury has laid itself open to the charge of putting the cost of this proposed reform at a prohibitive figure, and taking advantage of that prohibitive figure to avoid the possibility of
an inquiry into the whole subject.. There is a Spanish proverb which says:
Better a slow walk which lasts, than a trot which tires.
This country having always proceeded cautiously in the matter of social reform, can proceed equally cautiously with the reform suggested in this proposal. Mothers' pensions can be divided into four sections; first, the mothers whose husbands have deserted them; second, unmarried mothers; third, mothers whose husbands are incapacitated and who have children to maintain, and fourth, widows with children. We may strike out for the time being the two first Sections. The Motion deals more particularly with the other two, and it would be very much easier for us to get those dealt with in the Motion put forward. The Mover of the Motion gave the maximum cost as about £20,000,000 per annum, and suggested that there might be 120,000 widows and 250,000 children dependent, upon them. I have taken out figures and I find that if we make provision for 100,000 widows at the rate of about, say, 25s. a week, and 250,000 children dependent upon them at a pension of 10s. a week, the whole cost to the State would amount to £13,000,000 per annum. But, as other speakers for this Motion have so well pointed out, we must not jump at the conclusion that this is £13,000,000 of new money, because we have to take into consideration—and this is a fact which needs emphasising—that we are already paying very substantial sums for Poor Law allowances, reformatories and children's institutions, to say nothing of the enormous advantages that would accrue to the nation, by enabling the mothers to bring up more healthy, more productive children for the benefit of the nation, all of which are calculations impossible to measure in any monetary sense.
I do not like making comparisons with America. I am not going to say that we in this country are not so sympathetic for our people as the other nations of the world, but in the matter of mothers' pensions, we can take a lesson from America, and I believe that we shall be prepared in this country to take a lesson from any country which we can assimilate to our own advantage. In America they have already on the Statute Book an Act to
provide for dependant children, and an aid to mothers' law. I do not know whether America has been actuated more by humanitarian or material considerations. But I do suggest that in this proposed scheme of mothers' pensions we have a wonderful combination of humanitarianism and materialism. Some people argue that the provision of pensions, as suggestion in the. Motion, will have a tendency to increase the birth rate. I am not going to elaborate upon that very interesting question, but to those who might give as their reason for not supporting this Motion, that it might have that effect I would only say that all the evidence goes to prove that any improvement in the standard of life is invariably accompanied by a decreased birth rate. The higher the efficiency of the individual, whether brought about by individual action or legislative action, the greater the effect in decreasing the birth rate. We know that the poorer the people as a general rule the larger the family, whereas with more education very often the smaller the family.
I believe that these pensions would make for increased efficiency in the homes of the country, and certainly make for the increased education of the children of the widows who would be dependent upon those pensions. We have the fact that in France maternity benefit has not prevented a decline in the birth rate. So if hon. Members may be inclined to vote against this Motion, because of the possibility of ifs effect upon the birth rate, I would ask them to consider the suggestions which I have just made. I know that, generally speaking, it, is impossible for the average working man to make provision for himself. Though I happen to he of the same nationality as the Mover of the Motion, I represent a constituency away from my native country, and I come into contact with a large section of agricultural labourers, and there is no one in this House who will suggest I hat, however thrifty a farm labourer may be, it is possible for him, even if he lives to a ripe old age, to make provision for his widow and children, in the event of his premature decease.
Moreover we have this difficulty in country districts. If by misfortune a farm labourer's wife should become a widow, by the system of tied cottages which prevails she would be turned adrift from that
locality in which she is known and she would have greater difficulties to face in obtaining employment for the maintenance of her family. Therefore out of those humanitarian considerations we ought to support this Motion. One argument used against pensions is that they would have a tendency to discourage thrift. I do not think that that could be said about mothers' pensions. These certainly would not discourage thrift in a thrifty husband because it would be no comfort for him to know that, if anything happened to him, his widow would be getting a pension from the State. He would he saving in anticipation of getting some comfort from his thrift in his old age, and it is no argument to bring against the granting of widows' pensions to say that the husband might become less thrifty as a consequence of this proposal. Moreover, medical evidence is certainly strongly against mothers with children being compelled to go out to work in order adequately to protect the interests of those children. It is not good for the health of the children themselves, and even from that consideration alone we ought, very willingly, to make any sacrifice that may be necessary to provide for pensions for the widows who are bringing up families. The Motion before the House really means that the State takes the responsibility as a. sort of foster parent; it takes the place of the father until the children reach an age when they are able to fight for themselves. It is no use, as the Mover of the Motion so eloquently said, praying for the fatherless and the orphan unless we are willing to do something for the fatherless and the orphan. An ounce of help, after all, is very much better than a. ton of sympathy.
Pensions ought to be given, not as a charity but as a right, and I am very glad that in this Motion there is a suggestion that they should be administered altogether outside of any question of the Poor Law, because the really decent woman has a horror of Poor Law relief. If we grant these pensions as a right, there is no reason why they should not be administered quite outside any question of the Poor Law. I know the situation in this country is very difficult, and that the economic position is unprecedented. We are labouring under a very oppressive burden of taxation at the present moment, but I am sure there is no
right hon. or hon. Member in this House who does not desire to do everything possible to bring some comfort and solace to those widows who, unhappily bereaved of the breadwinner, are trying to do their best to bring up their families in such a way as to reflect credit upon themselves and to make them useful citizens of this country of ours. I very warmly support the Motion before the House.

Mr. GERALD HURST: The House will congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on his very able and well-informed speech. Indeed, all the speeches we have heard this evening have been of a very persuasive character. Although I have objections to make to this Motion, I do so fully impressed by the humanity and high temper which have characterised the admirable speeches of the Mover, the Seconder, and the supporters of the Motion. This is an appeal. If it were an appeal purely to the sentiments, I have no doubt it would be unanimously supported by all parties here, It is not, however, a question of sentiment:, but a practical question. Because it is a practical question, I wish to put forward certain difficulties in the way of the Motion which, I hope, will be met by some of the speakers who are going to join in the Debate, in support of the Motion, later on.
First of all, two false points have been made in support of the Motion. The Mover of the Motion said that the position of a family who bad lost their breadwinner ire civil life was absolutely the same, in its claim upon the State, as that of a family, the breadwinner of whom had fallen in action or died in the service of the State. That is a false analogy, because the reason why the State pensions a family the head of whom has fallen in the State's service is that that is one of the conditions of his employment. The soldier takes much less pay than the man who earns his living in civil life, and he incurs much greater risk. It is because his pay is less, very often for a long period of years, and because his risk is so much greater that the State pensions his family. I agree, of course, that there is considerable risk in civil employment, but, normally speaking, the risk of the soldier is greater and the pay is much less than are the risk and the pay of the ordinary civilian. Therefore,
I think, with great respect, there is no point in that analogy.
Nor, again, is it fair to draw an analogy between conditions in England and conditions in the United States. In the United States, the State can afford to do things far beyond the powers of the State in this country. Had America taken its due share in the world War, and had it shouldered its due responsibilities after the War, instead of shirking them, it would not be able to be as generous as it is to its people—[An HON. MEMBER: "Before the War, too!"] Before the War it was a far richer and more prosperous country than Great Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all!"] That is common knowledge. The wealth of America is infinitely greater than that of England. Moreover, the position of New Zealand and other Dominions is very different from our position. There you have small populations and generally a much higher level of prosperity. You do not get so many rich people as in England, but the general level of prosperity is very much higher than that here, and the State can therefore afford to do more.
Having brushed aside two points, which are false points, and which cannot carry weight, let us get to the real gist of the Motion. It has been said by hon. Members in supporting the Motion that the reform therein advocated is desired by a large number of people in the country, particularly by the widows. Naturally, because everybody who is in difficulties would be very glad to receive State assistance. Every argument which has been advanced this evening on behalf of widows and their families, could be advanced equally well on behalf of old age pensioners, of all other pensioners, and of all people who have not pensions at all; on behalf, in fact, of everybody who is in difficulty or suffers poverty, or the
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
It is no argument to say that the fact of a Motion of this sort would give hope and encouragement to the particular class in whose interests it was framed. Of course it would. We have to look at it, not from the point of view exclusively of them, but from the point of view of the country. It. is quite true that the passing of this Motion would be popular. I also think it would win a great many votes,
which is also, no doubt, a material consideration. I have come across widows in my own constituency who say that they have joined the Labour party because this question of mothers' pensions forms a plank in the Labour party's programme, and not in the programme of others. I quite realise that it does catch votes, but, after all, we have to look at it, not from the point of view of vote catching but from the point of view of the nation, and we must take a long view.
One speaker rather scoffed at opposition to this Motion, on the ground that any opponent of it was treating the matter as merely one of pounds, shillings and pence The last hon. Gentleman who spoke said hr would not mind making a sacrifice for so good a cause. It. is all very well talking glibly—if I may say so—about sacrifices or about mere questions of £ s. d., but the money has got to be found. There is no bottomless well from which we can draw our resources. What the citizens had to decide at the last Election, and will have to decide for many years to come, is whether they are going to take a short view, and support each and every scheme of social reform put before them, merely because it is desirable, popular and attractive; or whether they are going to take a long view, and realise what increased taxation means to the well-being of the country. Most Conservatives in this House and in the country have never barked this issue. I can say quite frankly for the City of Manchester, one of the divisions of which I represent that we put it quite clearly before our constituents throughout the city at the last Election that, if they voted for us, they would get no social reform; they would get economy and stability, and nothing else.

Mr. J. DAVISON: They will not be disappointed.

Mr. HURST: No, they will not. The result of putting that issue honestly and fairly before the constituents of Manchester was that, we won seven seats out of ten. [represent one of the poorest constituencies in Manchester I told my constituents—I am not ascribing any virtue to myself, but I am saying what was done by our party throughout that portion of Lancashire—we told them that in the long run these schemes of social reform, no matter how popular they
were, all meant money. If more money comes from the Exchequer, it means a greater burden upon the community. The greater the burden on the community the higher the cost of production. If we want to see a trade revival, and if we realise that employment is, after all, much more important than doles and temporary gifts and things of that sort, we must realise that it is far better to lay aside all these alluring schemes of social betterment, which mean the extraction of money from the taxpayer, in order to concentrate on the far more vital point of reducing the burden on the taxpayer, reducing the cost of production, and enabling this country once more to hold its own in the neutral markets of the world. That is the real way towards salvation. At present the great difficulty of our export trade from England, and particularly from the North, is that the foreign buyer cannot afford to pay our prices. The raw products of Asia and Africa remain at the price at which they were in 1914, whereas our textiles sent in exchange for these raw products can be bought only at two or three times the price that was asked in 1914. The main cause of the increased cost of our goods is the increased burden of taxation. If you want to get that burden of taxation reduced so as to regain our foreign markets and find employment, the one way is to abstain, however unpopular it may be for the time being, from all schemes of social reform which place a greater burden upon the community.
If working people took a long view and realised that their interests were bound up with the revival of trade and that that was much more important than an increased pension here or an increased dole there, they would follow the lead which was given to them by the present Government at the last Election, when no promises were made. [Interruption.] There were promises of tranquillity and economy neither of which costs money, and the reason why that programme made such a tremendous appeal to those working people who can think was that they realised where their real interests in the national life lay. It is on that ground and on that ground alone—while, of course, recognising the great boon that mothers' pensions would be—that we feel there is a bigger national interest in opposing the Motion than in supporting
it. It does not follow that something cannot still be clone in the way of help for mothers and fatherless children. An hon. Member referred to the care of children in cases where the mother was at work. Everybody knows that there is a great growth of day nurseries and crêches which are supported by voluntary agencies in the great cities. Many of them are provided by the municipalities, which are already meeting that particular need. If we could get good trade again it stands to reason that with lower taxation we could afford to indulge in some of these experiments in social reform—experiments which at the moment are inopportune but which in time to come may be both expedient and wise.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I must plead guilty to belonging to that class of people who may be regarded as sentimentalists. I support this Motion because I feel that it should be supported by all parties. I hope that every Member, upon thinking of the subject, will feel that he must support it in the Division Lobby. Necessity is the first thing I wish to refer to in relation to this Motion. At present there is in operation no scheme that, in the ordinary course, provides a sufficient income for a widow and family when the bread-winner is taken away. The tendency of the time is to cut out married women from the labour market. But when a woman becomes a widow, of necessity she has to turn out in order to earn her living and. to keep her children. Such a woman is generally a most deserving woman. She would rather starve than accept Poor Law relief. She works hard and often loses her health and spirits. Her history is generally one of marriage at 22 or 23 years of age, then four or five children, and no opportunity to save during her married life. Probably on marriage the furniture was procured on the hire system. The bread-winner dies and she is called upon to act in the capacity of father and mother in the home. She has to try to earn all the money she can by casual labour, such as charing, odd sewing, or work of that kind. What is her alternative? She must accept Poor Law relief, which is a great stigma to which she objects. I heard the other day of a relieving officer suggesting, in reference to a requisition for help, "Why, if you
are not careful you will make that widow as comfortable as the rest of us."
If a widow does not obtain Poor Law relief, she has to depend on charity organisations. Possibly a concert is arranged in the village or town where she lives, or a whist drive or other kind of charitable effort is organised. Failing these, she may possibly have to depend on the charity of relations. That is not always easy to obtain, because the relations are generally as poor as herself, and they often live at some distance and it is impossible to go to them. The scheme suggested in this Motion is to give the widow an allowance for all children under 14 years of age. This would not require any fresh machinery, because for the children under five [...] could be done through the welfare centres, and for the children from 5 to 14 years of age it could be done through the education authorities. The amount paid would be based on the present sum allowed to widows of ex-service men. Other countries which have adopted this scheme are numerous and not one of them has repealed it.
Objectors to the scheme say that it is likely to pauperise the people. That was said of old age pensions and it has no significance. Other objectors say that it would release the relatives from their duty towards their poor kinsfolk. As I I have said, the relatives are generally too poor to help. A third objection, which we have heard on all hands, is that the scheme would be a burden on the taxpayer. I will not attempt to go into the figures. They have been dealt with satisfactorily by the Mover of the Motion, but they are very often misjudged. I cannot grasp very quickly figures in millions, but I do say that as to-day we are spending about 17s. 6d. on each child under the Poor Law, it would be a better proposition to give the widowed mother 10s. for each child and allow her to keep it at home. The right person to care for the children is undoubtedly the mother. A mother is doing the greatest service to the State in bringing up her children. In most cases the widow left with children has no income. Very likely she has had to nurse the breadwinner through a long illness. Probably, too, debt has accumulated, and she is left in an unsatisfactory position from
the point of view of health. She is left in this position. She probably has debts to face, and she has to work hard to try and earn money. She loses her strength and health and, above all, she loses her spirits. The children are deprived of the vital necessities of life; before long they swell the ranks of the ill-nourished and unhealthy children, and very soon they become chargeable to the rates or have to go to some institution, hospital, etc. We do not want these children to have their strength undermined. We want the widows to have the means and the possibility of bringing these children up in the home as a family in a way which will fit them to be proper citizens of the community. The future of the community and the chances of our having an Al nation depend upon the health and strength of the children, and I hope the House will support the Motion, which seeks in this particular way to bring about the betterment of our country.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I desire to join with the other speakers who have supported this Motion, because I feel I cannot give a silent vote on the question involved in the Resolution before the House. The opinions I hold on this subject are not newly formed. They have been gained in the hard school of practical experience as a Poor Law guardian. Too often have I seen these people in their distress coming before me as a guardian, and I wish to remind the House that widows left with children and without means have no security whatever miler the law as it stands. The widow with children under 14 years of age is, Ls a rule, herself under 60 years of age and able-bodied, and therefore the guardians are precluded by the law from giving her any relief. Such a woman is compelled to leave her children and to go out, as the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) has said, as a charwoman or doing washing or some other menial work, while the children are practically uncared for during her enforced absence. We on these benches consider that state of affairs to be a crime and a sin in a Christian country, and we ask that this great blot should be removed from our country's record as early as possible. I feel sure we can all picture the position of the children of a widow in these circumstances. Because of the poverty of
their mother the are driven in to the streets to sell matches and papers so as to earn a penny to obtain another crust to eke out their scanty food. Their health becomes undermined through underfeeding and lack of clothing, they never get a chance to secure any kind of employment or to become good citizens, and, finally, as I have said before in this House, they find themselves on the human scrap-heap. That is how I described the market for general labourers, which is always so overcrowded. In that way much more unemployment arises, and it does not end there. These children are driven into blind-alley employments, and they grow up without any useful occupation. No chance is given to the children of the bread-winner who has been taken away.
They may, of course, get help occasionally from generous people and, after all, the poor are generous, but it is only the poor who help the poor. Usually speaking the people who could afford to give something never know of these cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not accuse hon. Members of not trying to find out about these cases, but usually news about them does not reach that quarter and it is only the people who reside among the poor who know what is going on and what is being done. As a guardian I have stretched the Jaw to help them and I am afraid, if I were a guardian again, I should deliberately break the law in order to give relief where it is so urgently required despite the threat of the auditor to surcharge me. I have had that threat made to me before to-day when I have sought, in spite of the law, to give something to these poor people so that they might have some bread to eat and some clothing to wear. If the law is not altered, I am afraid it will be broken in the effort to help such cases. I appeal to hon. Members to show a little humanity in this matter and to remember that after all the cost involved in the Resolution cannot be so very much more than the cost to which the community is liable now. We have already heard that 17s. 6d. per week is charged if a child is adopted by the Poor Law and taken into the workhouse. I think that could with advantage be given to the mother of the children. After all she is the natural guardian and the person who will see that they are brought up good citizens.
We ask that that aspect of the question shall have first consideration. The love of a mother for her children cannot be destroyed, and no matter where her children go, her love follows them. It is her care that the children require if they are to grow up as good citizens. I urge the House as I have urged it before to deal with this question because the Poor Law does not meet it. The guardians have no power whatever to help these people except at the risk of breaking the law. I feel strongly on this subject; my whole soul is in what I am saying because I have seen so much of the misery suffered by widows and children. No one can wonder at my being sincere in regard to all that appertains to such cases as could be laid before this House regarding these children—how they are driven from one place to another, how guardians actually tell the widow to get out of the decent house which the father thought a fit place for his wife and family and to go into slums where the rents arc cheaper in order to save the ratepayers' money. What difference is there between asking local authorities to keep such a woman and her children and asking the State to take it on? Surely the father of these children has not committed any crime because he died, yet apparently as the law exists, he is regarded as having done so and as we cannot visit it on the dead man we visit it on his widow and family. That is the position which we, as Christians have taken up. Much has been said here about Christianity. I ask are we all Christians? Do we believe in the Sermon on the Mount? Do we believe we are all of one family? Do we believe that there is one Father over all. If so, then we should change our methods. As it is, what a family we are—misery on the one hand and wealth on the other—yet we are one family. We on these Benches are desirous of changing this state of affairs, and becoming that real family that Christ intended the world should be when he delivered that memorable Sermon on the Mount. We believe we have the sympathy of the House in every quarter, and we are asking that we should be given practical sympathy on this occasion, and that the House should accept the Resolution, and I feel sure I can, without hesitancy, say that they will earn the good wishes of at least 75 per cent. of the people of this country by doing this
for the widows and children. I heartily support the Resolution, and hope the House is going to accept it.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: It was my privilege to take some little part in the first Debate on this subject about four years ago. That discussion was introduced by our late colleague, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and I should like to be permitted to take this opportunity of expressing what I believe is the great regret of the whole House at his sudden and early death. The matter then was fully discussed, so far as the time at our disposal permitted. Before I took part in that Debate I had had the privilege of personal converse with the man who was the first originator of what are now known as mothers' pensions, Judge Neil, who is regarded as the father of the mothers' pensions, and the conversations I had with him removed from me all thought of regarding this question from the standpoint of sentimentality, and put it purely as a practical matter.
The point of this discussion is not from the standpoint of the mother, but from the standpoint of the child. It is in the interests of the children, who are the future citizens, and it is not only the interest, but it is the duty, of the State not only to educate its future citizens, but to make sure also that physically they shall be qualified for the responsible duties which lie in front of them. Consequently, I do not regard this as a sentimental matter, but as a matter in which the whole interests of the State are involved, and I believe it is a practical measure in some way to see that the little children grow up under conditions which will make them good citizens of the State. We have already had reference to what we all know is the appalling waste in money, but to me, appalling as it is, it is nothing to the appalling waste in human life. We have it in our fearful state of unemployment, but we have it also, in the matter now before the House, in the waste of human life in little children growing up under conditions in which they have no chance to qualify themselves for their responsibilities. I am one of those who have sufficient faith to believe that in the very interests of the State, some day we shall judge all our legislation from the standpoint of the child, and I believe it is only in that way that in the long run we
are going to secure economy of men as well as of money.
10.0 P. M.
I did not, however, rise to take part in the essentials of this Debate. It seems to me that all that has been covered already, and admirably covered, by speech after speech. I rose to refer to one or two points arising from the last Debate on the subject. The first point is this. We have had only one discussion in this House on this subject, and we were cot allowed to have a Division on that occasion, because it was talked out I respectfully appeal to the Government that on this occasion they will give us a chance, a free and open chance, of saying what we believe ought to be done in regard to this great and vital question, and I trust, therefore, that from no section of the House will there be any attempt to talk this out for the second time, but that we shall have an opportunity of deciding the issue by a Division. The other point is this. The representative of the Government on the former occasion was the then Home Secretary (Mr. Shortt). I know he did not represent the Government in power to-day, and I dare say they will not accept any responsibility for his views, but I want to press on the Government that this is not a matter only for the responsibility of the House. It is a matter for the responsibility of the Government itself. In watching the true interests of this country, this is not too small a matter to come under their purview. Mr. Shortt, in winding up the Debate on that occasion, used these words in reference to a Motion the terms of which wore almost precisely the same as the terms of the Motion now before the House. He said:
We cannot accept these words, but the Government accepts the principle behind them 
I want to know whether the present Government, like the last Government, in the words of the thon Home Secretary, accepts the principle behind the words. Mr. Shortt went on to say:
and hopes something of the kind may be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1919; col. 1996, Vol. 114.]
That was four years ago. Nothing has been done. I earnestly trust that the Government is not going back upon its predecessor, but will go one better and will say that it not only agrees with the principle and that something shall be done, but will be prepared to-night to
tell ns what that something is, so that we may make some practical step forward in the interests of the little children.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: It is with very great pleasure that I speak for the principle of this Motion, and while there are certain sections of the Motion that I am not prepared to support, at any rate, the principle of widowed mothers' pensions to my mind, and to that of every economist and every man who is properly considering the taxpayers' pockets, should receive support. I want to take one or two points made by the hon., learned and gallant Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) who spoke in respect of his constituency in Manchester. I want to speak for mine, a constituency which is an industrial one, and in which there is, perhaps, more married woman labour than in most other constituencies in Great Britain. First, I want to say that it would be cheaper for the taxpayer to have a contributory scheme of mothers' pensions, which might be actuarially calculated and paid by the husband when he marries. It might be contributory by the employer, husband, and then, to a certain extent, by either the municipality or the State. I am not concerned for the moment to show an exact actuarial calculation to prove that the taxpayer would be relieved of what is supposed to be a heavy burden, should the question of mothers' pensions be accepted and settled. But what I am prepared to say is this, that in respect of the tuition and education of children up to the age of 7, it would be a lessening in regard to the cost of education of not less than £6,000,000 taking both the industrial and agricultural districts of England, because what obtains is that the child of sometimes even 4 years of age and above, while the mother goes out to work in the cotton mills—as she is compelled to do to assist with upkeep of the home in many industrial districts in Lancashire —she sends her children to school even At such an early age so that they may have some sort of care and tuition—tuition and care that she herself would give gladly were it possible and if such pensions were available would indeed make possible. It would thus lift the cost of tuition from the present cost of education which I assert—and I have had in respect of this calculation support from certain authorities—would cost no less
than £6,000,000. I do suggest that as a fair economic consideration mothers' pensions should have consideration in respect to relief of the taxpayer municipal and national. There is another matter, namely, that it would have a bearing on the cost of our production. When we remember the young men and youths who are kept out of employment by married women taking their jobs and I do suggest that, with regard to a man trained in certain spheres of trade, if an employer has to choose between a young man thoroughly trained and a married woman who has necessarily and properly her mind on her children and home, the young man is more technically efficient and better in relation to output than the woman, and I suggest it is a more economic way and would mean better home conditions for all were our young manhood able to take the place of married women in our factories. By no means am I going to prevent the work of married women in our mills, for they are compelled to do so in many cases in support of their homes.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is damnable that married women should have to work to make the family income.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I agree, but unfortunately it prevails. I have some little knowledge with respect to the education of children. I was on an educational authority both in respect of defective children and in respect of normal children for eight or nine years, and I want to say this, that defective children in some cases arc the result of married women and mothers having to work. In respect of the cost of the education of defective children, due, as I said before, in some eases as the result of married women having to work, there would be a saving to the Exchequer in respect of the educational grant, and also in respect to the general cost of our scattered homes, of between£3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year, so again I say that from the 'taxpayers' point of view it would be a healthy, useful and proper consideration were His Majesty's Government to accept a contributory scheme of mothers' pensions. I do respectfully suggest that the latter part of this Motion is not in the best interests of the reform we have in view,
such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the
municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law.
I suggest that the State, the employer and the husband should contribute something towards this, that it should be in the form of State insurance or something of that nature.
I have spoken first in respect to the economic consideration, but I desire also to speak from the higher moral and ideal standpoint. I should like hon. Members opposite to understand that the very essence of feeling and high moral tone is not the special virtue of people across the Gangway. There are men equally with high ideals on this side, and because we do not wear our hearts on our sleeves you must not imagine that we do not take a very definite idealistic and practically sympathetic view in respect to our duties as employers to our women employés who support us by their labour and help to make the trade of the country. This country is a land of homes and its character has been built in its home life; and when we consider how the hustle and Americanisation of industry is upon us, let us remember how vital it is that the morale; the well-being of the nation, to have the home life conserved, should be preserved arid lifted to its highest ideal. I am not prepared to admit that Canada, and the United States of America, are able to show us anything in respect of home life, but I do see a difficulty and a danger if the home life is broken up, and the responsibility of parenthood to early child life is removed and the natural spirit between the parent and the State is divorced, by married mothers having to leave their children for work. If we are to have that high ideal for which that great thinker of the Roman Catholic Church said, "Give me the children up to seven and you can have them for the rest of their lives "—if we are to have that high moral tone in our natural life., if the mother is to be the greatest guide and educator of the child, then indeed we shall be a nation worthy of our great forebears, and capable of facing the great future which this Empire and country has to face. I do support a Motion for mothers' pensions, but I regret that I am not prepared to support the whole of the Motion on the Paper.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I do not make any apology to the-House for taking
in the discussion this evening what is, apparently, the unpopular view. It is sometimes necessary to have the courage of one's convictions, and to express one's views, even if those views may for the moment be unpopular, and I take this opportunity, because at the last General Election my opponent made a very great point of the promise of mothers' pensions, among innumerable other offers. I, on the other hand, refused to make any promises of that kind, and the result, so far as I was concerned, was eminently satisfactory. I had some hesitation about joining in this Debate. I was thinking once or twice whether I ought not to take the advice of Mr. Weller, and say to myself, "Samivel, beware of widders." But it is a matter of great importance, and it is a matter in which I, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the Front Bench opposite, had the opportunity of discussing with Judge Neil, of Chicago, when in England. I had the privilege of entertaining him for the week-end, and I tried to get him down to the actual facts of the case as they were in America, to see where the differences were between the American system and the system we have in this country, or lack of system if you like to call it so. In America it varies in various States, but in some of the States there was a regulation that the orphan child was looked upon as a ward of court, and the children's courts were responsible for those children. There were also a very large number of societies in America—welfare societies and so forth—which were always watching the interests of these children, and continually dragging the mothers before the courts, over one of which Judge Neil presided, claiming that the mothers were neglecting their children, and they were being sent off in increasing numbers to institutions which were being carried on at a very great expense to the American people. When it was boiled down to the actual is me in America, it came to this: Was it cheaper to pay a reasonable amount to the, mother to keep her children at home, or to keep going these expensive, State institutions which were rapidly increasing all over the country?
Judge Neil was able to prove to the American people—who have an eye to a bargain—that in the particular circumstances of the case over there it would be practically as cheap for them
—in some States, may I point out, that payment is only made where there are more than two children—if not cheaper, to pay the mother a reasonable allowance to keep her children than to put them into an institution. Things are very different here in this country. For the last 15 years or so I have had the privilege and pleasure of being connected with an institution which has been running in this country for over a hundred years, where fatherless boys are taken in, well fed, looked after and given an admirable education, found a job in life afterwards, and many of them have done extraordinarily well. All this has been done without a penny cost either to the ratepayer or the taxpayer.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the percentage that they get into that home?

Mr. ROBERTS: This particular home takes in about 100 boys.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where this is?

Mr. ROBERTS: The Bluecoat School, Sheffield.

Viscountess ASTOR: Have they mothers?

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr. T. SMITH: What proportion of Sheffield boys are inside that home?

Mr. ROBERTS: They are all Sheffield boys.

Mr. SMITH: But I mean what proportion of the boys in Sheffield who are inside this kind of home—those that would generally come under the Poor Law guardians?

Mr. ROBERTS: I do not know how those numbers would compare.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Not one of them!

Mr. ROBERTS: At the present, moment we are practically able to take in all the applicants. The school has an extraordinary good reputation in the neighbourhood and the boys who have gone from the school have done, many of them, extraordinarily well in life. That has been clone without State or rate-aid but by benevolence—I will not use the word
charity—the benevolence of people who for years and years have taken an interest in the orphans. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that because some of us resist the State paying benevolence of the kind, that we object to benevolence in itself. The hon. Gentleman for one of the Durham divisions was talking of Christian charity; but whenever the text he mentioned is rolled out from the benches opposite it is misinterpreted. The text is "Let him that bath two coats give unto him that hath none." That is the correct translation. It is not take away from him who has two coats and give to him that has none. That is not Christianity. It is a free gift that is meant, not taking by force.
However, I have got rather taken off the point, which was about the applications that come in for boys to come into this particular school. It has been one of my painful duties to listen to the applications of the mothers coming with children and asking for a boy to be taken into the school. One finds that in the usual way, where there are one or two children, the mother is working in some way, the children are very often looked after by a grandparent or other relatives while the mother is working. In other cases the home is kept going by taking in lodgers where there are, say, two children. Where you get a larger number of children you find usually (where the guardians are administering, and doing their work, as the hon. Member said, in a humane way) that the hulk of the income coming into the home is coming from Poor Law relief. I do not think there is very much difference of opinion between myself and hon. Members opposite upon this Motion. The whole thing really comes down to the sentimental point of view of Poor Law relief. If the Poor Law were broken up, as suggested in the Majority Report of the Commission, and these payments were taken out of the Poor Law and put under some different local authority it would apparently satisfy hon. Members opposite. My point of view—and so far as I know of many others—is that it does not matter in the least whether it is called Poor Law relief, or whether it comes under a committee or a local authority. We admit that the relief has to be given. It is relief of the poor which ever way you look at it, and "a rose by any other name
will smell as sweet." Poor Law relief and Poor Law guardians arc unpopular because in past times the people of this country strongly objected to receiving public money. There has been in the past an abhorrence amongst the majority of people in regard to receiving Poor Law relief, but that abhorrence in many districts is gradually disappearing. The abhorrence, however, remains towards the hand that distributes the relief.
I think everybody admits that where there is a widow with three or four children which she is unable to maintain, it is cheaper for additional relief to be given, and nobody would argue that she ought to be left to starve. In such cases it would be cheaper to make payments in the way that has been suggested. There are, however, one or two difficulties on which I should like some explanation. Is it proposed to deal by this proposal with widows, no matter how many children they have, or only where there are a certain number of children? Secondly, is there any question of a means limit, or are you going to pay this money to widows whether there is need for it or not? These are questions on which we are entitled to have some information from the Mover of the Resolution.
There is another point upon which desire some further information. If you are going to maintain the children and the widow until the children are 16 years of age, what is going to happen to the widow afterwards It is easy to say that the children may then be in a position to maintain her, but there may be a long period to provide for between the children attaining 16 years of age and the widow attaining 70 years of age. I think that is a question on which we are entitled to have some answer. In the Debate which took place four years ago the figure given by the late Mr. Tyson Wilson as to the cost of these proposals was £25,000,000. The representative of the Government at that time placed the figure somewhat higher, but I think we may take it that the cost would be fairly put down at about £20,000,000. I ask is it possible at the present moment to reasonably expect, burdened as we are with high taxation which we are trying to get rid of in every possible way by cheese-paring, to take a large sum like£20,000,000
and put it on the backs of the taxpayers of this country? I should be very interested to keep a little ledger of the cost of the various proposals put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. A fortnight ago they had one involving an expenditure of £17,000,000. To-night they want to spend another £20,000,000. If they go on in this way we shall soon have a liability of about £1,000,000,000, and the total sum will he such that anyone who looks at the proposition will come to the conclusion that the result would be absurd. If anything can be done in this matter of mothers' pensions it will be done by a a method alluded to by a previous speaker —by something in the way of mutual insurance. In that way possibly something can he done, I hope, when better times arrive.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I hope that, after the Debate we have had to-night, the hon. Gentleman who will reply for the Government will do his best to give us something. He has seen that on principle it is very difficult to argue against this proposal. There has only been one argument of principle put forward. It has been urged that the widow of a soldier who died for his country is more deserving than the widow of the workman who dies at his work. In these days we think, perhaps, more of war, but when we are dealing with a period covering many years, most of which were peace years, surely it is pretty clear that the matter must be regarded from the point of view of the civilian rather than of the soldier. I wish to urge that the great consideration is not whether the dead father was deserving, but whether the children are needy. The great overriding interest we are arguing for is the interest of the children. There has been one other question of principle raised. It was suggested that we on this side of the House' were not as careful as we ought to be in divorcing the mother from the children. The suggestion was that Socialism tends in that direction. I will not stay to argue that point, but surely of all the great industrial countries in the world at the present time the United States of America is the least inclined towards Socialism, and yet that is the country where, with extraordinary rapidity, this movement has made its way. Let me take the actual data. In the United States of America
the movement was begun in the year 1909. It was taken up by President Roosevelt, who was a man guided by generous motives of humanity and not by economic theory. Now. as we have been told to-day, there are 40 States out of the 48 in America. which give mothers' pensions, and in many cases on an even more generous scale than is hinted at in this Motion.
It is clear that what is likely to weigh most in the minds of those who have doubts on this proposal is the question of cost. I daresay the lion. Baronet who will speak for the Government is going to give us Government figures. On the Government figures we have heard that it will cost £50,000,000, which rather surprises those of us who have been studying the question. Government figures, however, are not always reliable. Perhaps I may give one instance from my own Parliamentary experience. When we were discussing in past times what Super-tax would bring in, if it were imposed, the Treasury told us that we might get £3,000,000 a year. I think the figure put forward by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion was that it would cost £18,000,000, and that, with the saving in rates, the total increase of taxation of one sort and another would be £8,000,000 and that, I believe, is the figure adopted by the women's organisations who have worked out the cost.
I wonder whether the Government would not think it worth while, as a minimum, to offer the House at the present time some sort of open inquiry as to how much this was going to cost? Everyone wants to do something. The late Government, as was said just now, although they made no promise, took a most friendly line towards the Motion, and said they hoped it would be possible to do something; and I think this Government, four years afterwards, ought, if possible, to do something better. It is true, as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) said, that possibly, if he takes all the expenditure which all the Resolutions moved from this side of the House would involve, it would total up to a very large sum. Yes, but there is the other point or' view. Are the Government going to meet every one of these. Resolutions with the same answer: "No; our present expenditure is so enormous, and we see, absolutely, no way
out; we have no financial solution"? Are they, in every single case, going to say that? Of course, I know, that it is agreeable to some hon. Members, but I am certain it is not. agreeable to all. I think the Government, somewhere or other, will have to begin to distinguish between those great social reforms which are most needed and those which are a little less needed. They cannot simply go on every time saying "No, no, no!" to every one of these Resolutions.

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON - HICKS (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I think I ought to say, first of all, that I cannot bind whoever may be appointed Minister of Health. I am only temporarily in this position. Having said that, I should like to congratulate Members of the House on the way in which they have approached this problem. There was a certain amount of sentiment, and with a great deal of what has been said as to the value of the English home and the English mother I am in entire agreement. I have the honour myself to this day of having the benefit of a mother, and I can speak quite as feelingly as any hon. Member opposite as to what I owe to her. [An HON. MEMBER: "Can you imagine your mother in such circumstances?"] I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will rather regret having said that [HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!"] I want to call the attention of the House to the discrepancy between what has been said about the Poor Law question and the actual facts. A great deal has been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), who told us that he had broken the law on several occasions when sitting as a guardian, and almost inferred that guardians did not relieve this class of case at all. I could not quite understand what the hon. Member meant, and why it was necessary for him to break the law in giving relief to widowed mothers and their children.

Mr. LANSBURY: The real fact is that the auditors determine the amount that shall be given to a mother, and very often guardians are absolutely afraid to give what they know they ought to give, because of the Local Government. Board auditor.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am coming in a minute to the views of what the hon. Member calls the Local Govern-
meat Board. Let me give—I am bound to give Government figures in spite of semi-taunts of the hon. Member who preceded me—the number of people who are really affected. It was suggested to us that a large number of the children of widows go into Poor Law institutions of various kinds. There are, apart from unmarried mothers, 61,600 husbandless women in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales, and they have 135,501 children. Of these children only 3,331 are in institutions of any kind. That means that as against 3,300 children who have had to go into homes or institutions under the Poor Law, 132,000 have got outdoor relief, and that does not look as if the work of the guardians was the utterly heartless and soulless mode of working which has been suggested. Out of that number of 3,300 some are the children of mothers who are at work and are unable to take care of their children, and a certain proportion are the children of mothers who, I regret to say, are not fit to take care of their children, and they have been taken from them and put into Poor Law institutions. But the great bulk of the children who are receiving Poor Law relief are receiving it in their own homes, and are kept there because the Ministry of Health and the old Local Government Board have over and over again emphasised the importance of the home as against. Poor Law institutions.

Mr. LANSBURY: indicated dissent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will tell the House the view of the Ministry of Health. They cannot absolutely control the guardians, but they can do their best. The existing circular, which was issued by the Local Government, Board some years ago, and which is still in force, quite distinctly lays it down that the guardians, under the advice of the Ministry of Health, are to regard the home life as far preferable to institutional life. I should like to call attention to the circular so that hon. Members may realise the view of the Ministry of Health on this question and the view which is being carried out by the great bulk of guardians—
The value of home life in the education and training of the child is admittedly so great that wherever the elements of this
are already in existence the guardians would do well to offer it every encouragement and to take such action in regard to the granting of relief as will!east interfere with the unity of the family.
That is the considered decision of the Ministry of Health which is being acted on to-day. The circular goes on:
When the child is living with its parents the mother must naturally be regarded as primarily responsible for its welfare, but it the guardians give relief to the parents they are hound to see that the relief is properly applied and the child is not neglected.
This is from a paragraph headed "Sufficiency of Relief":
The guardians should ascertain by careful inquiry what is the normal standard of income on which a woman may reasonably be expected to bring up her family, regard being had to the cost and general standard of living and the rates of wages in the locality, and should use that standard as the criterion of the needs of each case.
If any hon. Member opposite were in office as Minister of Health and was laying down conditions on which he desired the guardians to act in dealing with cases of widows and their fatherless children, he could not put it more admirably than it has been put by the Minister of Health in this circular, which I am sure is known to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.

Mr. LANSBURY: I knew it by heart.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Some of the hon. Member's colleagues have been saying that the guardians and the Ministry of Health have no bowels of compassion, and that whenever they get hold of the unfortunate children of widows, they cram them into institutions where they cannot be brought up with the nurture and help of the mother in the home. That is quite contrary to the facts.
Now I come to the question of cost. I have had a very careful inquiry and estimate made, and the figure given by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) is well below the mark. The figure given by the husband of the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) four years ago was £25,000,000.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said £50,000,000.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am going to say more than £50.000,000. I will
tell the House how the figures are made up. The number of widows was given from the opposite benches as between 1,100,000 and 1,200,000. So far as I can estimate, about one-third of that number have children dependent upon them. At the present time, the number of widows with children depending upon them is estimated by the Department of the Ministry of Health and by their officials at about 400,000, and the number of children under 16 at 750,000. Everybody who has a soul or a heart would desire that this reform should be carried out if it can be done. Even a small pension of 7s. 6d. a. week, and 2s. 6d. for each child, would cost £10,500,000 for Great Britain alone after making liberal deduction for women who might be excluded on income grounds.
In the Debate to-night it has been said that it is the interests of the child and not of the widow that are important, and if we take into account the wives who have to look after a maimed or ill husband, the former bread-winner, the House must realise that the children in such a case are of as much importance to the nation as the child of the widow. If we add to the calculation the children of the wives of incapacitated men, it would mean at least another £2,000,000, bringing the total up to £13,000,000 for Great Britain, with a pension of only 7s. 6d. a week. The whole thing stops when the last. child reaches the age of 16. What are you going to do with the widows then? Here is a widow who, according to the scheme suggested to-night, would get £1 a week, and 10s. or 7s. 6d. for each child. If she had four children she would he in fair comfort during the period of her widowhood, until the last child reached the age of 16.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: She has a right to it.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I know a widow who has £70,000 a year.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The widow will have to go out to work in order to devote herself to her children.
How is it possible for her to go back to the labour market, having lost all her ability to earn, having lost, if she is one of those Lancashire women to whom an hon. Member referred, all the technical skill which she had 10 or 15 years previously? It is impossible. If the scheme
is to be carried out at all it must go on after the child has attained the age of 16 until the date when the woman receives the old age pension at the age of 70. You cannot say to a woman who in the interests of the State has brought up her children well, and trained them morally and physically until they ate fit to be responsible citizens of this country, when she is about 45 years of age and the child is done with: "Go back to work. We are going to take your pension. "If that is admitted as it must be, it will be found that the amount will be £13,000,000, on those figures, which will come to well over £20,000,000 in the course of a few years. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is worth it!"] That is not the point. I want the House to realise, before voting for it, what it is going to cost.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Were the figures for all widows, or only those on relief?

Sir W. J OYNSON-HICKS: The figures for all widows were given, but I said that only about 400,000 widows would come under this scheme. The scheme put forward was £1 a week and 10s. or 7s. 6d. for the children. I think you would have to include the wives of disabled men, and also the deserted wives. It is no good in saying, as one hon. Member did, that if you admit deserted or divorced wives you would get into the mire of collusion between husband and wife. The question debated tonight is the interests of the child, and the interests of the child whose parents are divorced or separated are every bit as great as the interests of the child whose mother is a widow. You cannot logically give a pension to the child of a widow and not. to the child of a divorced or separated woman. Then you have got to include the children of the unmarried mother.

Viscountess ASTOR: They have got fathers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They have got fathers, hut it is not always easy to find them or to make them pay. As a social reformer myself, I know that if you are going to do the thing at all you will have to include the children of the unmarried mother. You cannot logically leave them out. Including those here is the estimate given by the Government. On the basis which hon. Members opposite have laid down to-night in regard to the amount, that is to say, to put them
on the same basis as the war widow and the war pension, the cost was found to be over £50,000,000 a year, on the scale in force before the increases granted in 1919, and would be substantially more on the current scales.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Gross?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: £50,000,000 a year, gross. There would be a small saving on the Poor Law, but it would not be very much. Whether it be through the charity which the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) mentioned—and there is no charity so great, I willingly admit, as the charity of the poor to the poor—or from other causes the proportion of widows and of orphans who are to-day receiving Poor Law relief is certainly not 20 per cent. of the total who would come under the provisions of this proposal if they were carried out. Therefore the amount of saving from the Poor Law relief would be very small indeed.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we were told exactly the same thing when old age pensions were introduced. We were told that it was going to cost £6,000,000, and that there would be very little saving.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is because of that that I am giving the actual figure and asking the House before they vote on this question to realise quite frankly what the proposals are. When an hon. Member comes here, as one or two hon. Members have, and says that the proposals, if carried out, would cost about £8,000,000, it is not fair to let the House go to a Division with anything like that figure in their minds. In the Department of the Ministry of Health it has been investigated most thoroughly, not hostilely, but with a real desire to ascertain the facts. Whether there is a small saving in Poor Law relief; whether the amount is £55,000,000 or £45,000,000 does not for the moment really matter, but it will he undoubtedly as high as £45,000,000 a year if the scheme put before the House to-night were carried out.

Mr. HEMMERDE: How are they living now?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Louth has explained that they are helped by their relatives in various ways.

Mr. HEMMERDE: That comes on the community.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It comes on the community, but it does not come in actual payment out of public funds. What we have to find out to-night is what will come in payment from public funds That is clearly the amount, that this House will have to provide for if it passes this Motion.
What position, then, must; the Government take up? What are we to ask those who have been returned to Parliament, on pledges of economy to carry out? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, only a week ago, had to deal with this same question in regard to a matter of old age pensions. with which many of us feel in sympathy.

Mr. McENTEE: If they lived on sympathy, they would do well.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Many of as, sitting on the Government Benches, are just as keen that the honest—[An HON. MEMBER: "YOU do not show it!"]. I am not quite so sure about that. We try to be honest in doing—

Mr. WESTWOOD: Untrue! Try again.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member may make a cheap score by statements of that kind. I have never said that hon. Members opposite did not try to be honest. I have never said that of my political opponents. I respect their views, and I ask the same respect from them for my views. We have gone to the country again. Hon. Member after hon. Member —two at least said that they openly had opponents who were in favour of these widows' pensions—honestly went to their constituents, and said, "We cannot afford them, we will not vote for them." If they vote for them to-night, what will their constituents say? What right has anybody on our side of the House, who has gone to his constituents on a policy of economy and retrenchment, to vote for a scheme of this kind because his heart is in it?
Hon. Members opposite would not like to break their pledges and I appeal to them not to ask us to break ours. The Government has entered into this policy of retrenchment. There has been retrenchment in every possible way. If hon. Members were in Government De-
partments they would know quite well that the axe of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is falling on nearly every Department, and has been falling on nearly every Department in the last few weeks, in order to cut the Estimates down. While we have been dismissing people in the public employ, what right have we to come down and, because our sympathies may be in favour of this scheme, to say we will vote for a thing for which we know we cannot get the money? It is so easy to say "Take off the Whips. Let every hon. Member vote as he likes, as his sympathy and heart dictate," though we know perfectly well that he will go into the Lobby and give a heart vote, which is not a pocket vote, a vote in accordance with what he would like to do if he had the money, and a vote based on the knowledge that his will not be the responsibility for finding the money. Yon would be merely telling the widows and orphaned children that the House of Commons had passed a scheme which it knew full well could not be put into operation for many years to

come. I ask the House, particularly the supporters of the Government, quite frankly to realise that they were returned here on a policy of economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "You took a shilling off the Income Tax."] This would cost twopence off the Beer Duty. There are certain services that have to be provided by the Government and there is no money left for this purpose. We want to reduce taxation, because we believe that it is a burden on trade. We believe that only by getting rid of the burdens on trade will our trade revive, and only in that way will we get rid of the greatest burden of all—the burden of unemployment.

Question put,
That, in the opinion of this House, pensions adequate for the proper upbringing and maintenance of children should be paid to all widows with children or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law.

The House divided: Ayes, 184 Noes, 248.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Adams, D.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Fairbairn, R. R.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Falconer, J.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Fildes, Henry
Kenyon, Barnet


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Foot, Isaac
Kirkwood, D.


Astor, Viscountess
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lansbury, George


Attlee, C. R.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lawson, John James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gosling, Harry
Leach, W.


Barnes, A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Linfield, F. C.


Bonwick, A.
Greenall, T.
Lowth, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. B. (Glamorgan)
McCurdy, Rt. Han. Charles A.


Bromfield, William
Groves, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Brotherton, J.
Grundy, T, W.
M'Entee, V. L.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Buchanan, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Buckle, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Burgess, S.
Hancock, John George
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Harbord, Arthur
Martin F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James


Cairns, John
Harney, E. A.
Millar, J. D.


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Percy A.
Morel, E. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Morris, Harold


Chapple, W A.
Hastings, Patrick
Muir, John W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.


Clarke, Sir E C.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Collison, Levi
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Newman, Sir R. H, S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Herriotts, J.
Nichol. Robert


Darbishire, C. W.
Hirst, G. H.
O'Grady, Captain James


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Oliver, George Harold


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Paling, W.


Davison, J. E, (Smethwick)
Irving, Dan
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Duffy, T. Gavan
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parry, Lieut. Colonel Thomas Henry


Duncan, C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Phillips, Vivian


Dunnico, H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ede, J. C.
Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Potts, John S.


Edmonds, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Riley, Ben
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C


Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Weir, L. M.


Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Westwood, J.


Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wheatley, J.


Rose, Frank H.
Sullivan, J.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Royce, William Stapleton
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Whiteley, W.


Saklatvala, S.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wignall, James


Salter, Dr. A.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Sexton, James
Thornton, M.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Tillett, Benjamin
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shinwell, Emanuel
Tout. W. J.
Wintringham, Margaret


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Trevelyan, C. P.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Turner, Ben
Wright, W.


Simpson, J. Hope
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sitch, Charles H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)



Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Warne, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Snell, Harry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. J.


Snowden, Philip
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Robertson.


Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Webb, Sidney



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col- C. K.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Alexander, E. E- (Leyton, East)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hurd, Percy A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Banks, Mitchell
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Ednam, Viscount
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jephcott, A. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Ellis, R. G.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Barnston, Major Harry
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Becker, Harry
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Johnson-Hicks, Sir William


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falcon, Captain Michael
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Berry, Sir George
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Lamb, J. Q.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Forestier-Walker, L.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Blundell, F. N.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Brass, Captain W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lorden, John William


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Furness, G. J.
Lort-Williams, J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, L. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Gates, Percy
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Bruford, R.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Buckingham, Sir H.
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Manville, Edward


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Margesson, H. D. R.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Gretton, Colonel John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Butcher, Sir John George
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden}


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Button, H. S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Cassels, J. D.
Halstead, Major D.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, C. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nail, Major Joseph


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harrison, F. C.
Nesbitt, J. C.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Harvey, Major S. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hawke, John Anthony
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Clayton, G. C.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Newton, Sir D. G. C (Cambridge)


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Paget, T. G.


Collie, Sir John
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pease, William Edwin


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pennelather, De Fonblanque


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Penny, Frederick George


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Peto, Basil E.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pielou, D. P.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Houfton, John Plowright
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton




Privett, F. J.
Singleton, J. E.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Skelton, A. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Raine, W.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wallace, Captain E.


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C,
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)
Watts, Or. T. (Man., Withington)


Reid. Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sparkes, H. W.
Wells, S. R.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Rentoul, G. S.
Stanley, Lord
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Steel, Major S. Strang
White, Lt.-Col, G. D. (Southport)


Richardson, Lt. Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Whitla, Sir William


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Winterton, Earl


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wise, Frederick


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wolmer, Viscount


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sutcliffe, T.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henie)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



Sandon, Lord
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shakespeare, G. H.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colone


Shepperson, E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Gibbs.


Shipwright, Captain D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Orders of the Day — SECURITY AND REPARATIONS.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That this House, believing that the peoples of Europe wish to maintain peace and to pursue a policy which will secure it, agrees to invite in the first instance the Chambers of France and Belgium each to appoint a representative committee from all political sections, in order to exchange information and views with a similar committee appointed by this House regarding the occupation of the Ruhr in relation to the problems of security and reparations.'' —[Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.]

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday, 13th March.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—

(a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to he prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution, and from and after that, date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contribu-
430
tions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions at rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women ninepence, in the case of boys sixpence, and in the case of girls four-pence halfpenny; and
(b) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in paying to local education authorities, in respect of the amount by which the administrative expenses of local education authorities a re increased by any additional duties undertaken under the Act in connection with the administration of benefit, such sums as may he determined in accordance with a scale to he fixed under the Act."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I do not think it is necessary to explain this Resolution at, any great length. It is comparatively simple. It consists of two pairs, one part dealing with Clause 4 and the other with Clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 4, shortly put, deals with the dependants' allowances as they will be determined after the deficiency period has come to an end, broadly speaking; and the second portion deals with the expenses incurred as the result of carrying out what is called the Chelmsford Agreement. As to the first portion, namely, the financial adjustments, there is the carrying on of the expenditure not only to the end of the deficiency period, but from the end of the deficiency period to such period as may be prescribed. The second portion of the first part of paragraph (a) deals with a scale of expenses which may be considered to be likely to be reasonable when times become normal again. The scale under the Act of 1920, to which we hope as far as possible to revert when times become normal, was in the case of
men 4d. and 4d., or 8d. plus a quarter extra on behalf of the State. It is not considered now that that will be sufficient for two reasons, partly because it is conceivable—I am afraid it is more or less probable—that the numbers of unemployed may, owing to the War wastage, he somewhat in excess of what they were contemplated as likely to be under the Act of 1920; and, secondly, we have to add on the provision in respect of dependants' allowances. It is therefore suggested that we should be making proper provision, if we increased the contributions in respect of employer and employed person—taking the case of men, because that is the simplest case—from 4d. and 4d., or 8d., to 6d. and 6d., or 1s. Then add to that a quarter, as under the Act of 1920, and you get 1s. 3d., and similarly with regard to the other contributions for the women, and the boys and girls.
In regard to the second portion of the Resolution, I must say one word of a rather general character. It is this: the expenses are to be in accordance with a scale laid down in the Bill. It is unfortunate that we have not had more time to consult with the local authorities affected by the proposal. The reason of urgency has been, as the Committee is aware, that Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill deal with matters with regard to which great expedition is required. If the provisions of the Bill are to come into operation promptly we must get the Bill through before Easter. That being so this appeared to be, in all probability, the last, or one of the last, occasions during the present year when we can make a provision for dealing with this local authority matter. Therefore I hope that local authorities will realise that there has been no intention of rushing the Bill; so far as they were concerned it was merely a matter of the exigencies of the case in regard to the continuation of benefits that required us to bring the Bill; and has, perhaps, not given us the opportunity for discussion with the local authorities that we, under normal circumstances, would have desired.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the London County Council object to the Clause?

Sir M. BARLOW: It appears to be putting it very strongly to say that they
object to it, and scarcely equitable. What I do want to impress upon the local authorities is that the scales will have to be fixed, but not until after consultation with them. In view of that, and my explanation, I trust that they will not feel that they have been unreasonably treated. I would he glad now to have the Resolution.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I desire to move in paragraph (a) to leave out the words "In respect of the period between "and to insert instead thereof the words "as from." In the Act of 1920 the proportions of contributions were 4d. from the employer, 4d. from the workman, and 2d. from the State —or one-fourth of the total from the State. Since then we have had several Unemployment Insurance Acts and the amounts have risen considerably. At the present time the contributions from the employer is 10d., from the worker 9d., and from the State 6¾d., a total of 25¾d. It is now proposed, not to go back to the 1920 figures which were 4d., 4d., and 2d., but to fix a new figure 6d., 6d., and 3d.—in all is. 3d. According to the Financial Resolution nearly one-fourth of the amount that is contributed is to be paid by the State, against at present slightly more than one-third. We on these benches do not believe that it is advisable for the State to go back to the Act of 1920 and fix the sums in the same proportion as then. The Minister of Labour, and I think most hon. Members here know where I stand in regard to unemployment. I think most of my colleagues, if not all, are also in the same position as myself. We say that unemployment insurance ought to be a national burden and should not be upon a contributory basis so far as workmen and employers are concerned. I think the whole cost ought to be borne by the State, and there is no necessity for the State going back to the proportion of 1920. Whilst it is true that the State is going to pay one-fourth of the total contribution of the employer and the workman, it really only works out at one-fifth of the three parties to the contract. You are taking 6d. from the worker, 3d. from the employer and 3d. from the State. Here you have three parties contributing and one of the parties has all the powers of administration carrying with it the power of refusing benefits to those who are contributing. In these circumstances we want to know
why the third party should get off by paying one-half of the contribution which it ought to pay. Therefore we consider that the whole system of allocating the proportion ought to be revised by the Minister of Labour. The memorandum which has been issued states that when the reduced rates of contribution come into force the State contribution will be one-fourth of the combined contribution of employers and employed, which was approximately the proportion fixed by the Act of 1920, instead of approximately one-third, the proportion in operation under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1922.
As a matter of fact, the Financial Resolution of the Act of 1920 lays down that the State contribution shall be one-third and not one-fourth, although it was fixed in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920. The rates fixed in the Schedule of that Act laid down that the State shall pay one-fourth of the total contribution, but in the Financial Resolution passed by this House on the 4th of March, 1920, it was provided
That the payment aforesaid shall not exceed one-third of the aggregate of the contributions which would be received from employers and employed persons.
although you might go to the extent of one-third under that Act you provided in the Schedule power to restrict it merely to one-fourth. In this Financial Resolution which we are now considering you are fixing the proportion not at one-third but at one-fourth. We are altering the provisions of the Financial Resolution passed in 1920. There is nothing to prevent the Government from doing as they did, viz., having passed a Resolution giving them power to pay a certain proportion—up to a given maximum proportion—of the total contributions for the three parties, the Government do not pay so much, but pay considerably under the maximum. We cannot be assured that this Bill, which has gone into Committee upstairs, and the Financial Resolution for which we are now considering, will not prove another illustration of what has already been done by the Government. As a matter of fact the present Unemployment Insurance Bill is not going to be a permanent Bill, although the Minister of Labour expects it to be. During the last two years we had four or five Unemployment Insurance Bills brought in amending Bills
which we have debated here and the 1920 Act has been amended out of all recognition as a result. What guarantee have we, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has told us we may have a million and a quarter of people out of employment for at least a year—and I am told he is budgeting on that assumption —what guarantee have we that this Bill will not be amended before Whitsuntide by another Bill? Industry is now in such an unnatural condition: there are so many people on the fund, so many people requiring the benefit, so many being excluded because it is said that they are not genuinely seeking employment when there is no employment, that one does not know what may occur. When the Employment Exchanges were set up their object was to bring employers requiring labour and workers needing work together. Now they are merely paying out money and refusing men benefits instead of finding situations for them.

The CHAIRMAN: The question of the Employment Exchanges is very wide of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was under the impression that the object of the Financial Resolution was to give money to the Ministry of Labour which will be expended by the Employment Exchanges, and therefor it would be in order to discuss in a narrow sense the administration.

The CHAIRMAN: That might be very well on the Second Reading on the question of the contribution, and the hon. Member might argue whether or not it is sufficient, but he cannot make the Employment Exchanges a subject of debate.

Mr. MACLEAN: I did not put it as a subject of debate. I brought it in as an illustration of how the money that is being raised by the contribution is being retained by the Government. Of course I submit to your ruling and will now move my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I had better give my ruling now. All the Amendments on the Paper enlarge the scope of the Resolution and may thereby increase the charge. They are therefore out of order.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Amendment on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-
day) and myself, which seeks to delete from paragraph (a) the words,
and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions at rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women nine pence, in the case of boys six pence. and in the case of girls four pence halfpenny—
does not, so far as I can make out, in any way extend the scope of the Resolution, but rather narrows it. It takes away the power of the Minister of Labour with regard to certain proportions of certain rates that he is going to impose, and puts no further rates in their place. Consequently it cannot, I imagine, be regarded as seeking to increase or extend the powers of the Minister of Labour, or increase the amount contributed by the State. I put this forward as an argument why that Amendment should be considered and adopted by the Committee now.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is so. The Resolution sets forth that there shall be, up to a certain date to be fixed in the Bill, a contribution from the State equal to the present contribution, and that after that time that contribution shall be decreased. The effect of omitting these words would be to say that the present contribution shall continue indefinitely, and that undoubtedly, at some time or other, does increase the charge on the State.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am sorry to appear reluctant to accept your ruling, but the point I wish to put is that the Minister of Labour himself cannot fix definitely the date when the deficiency period will come to an end. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I accept that as indicating that he agrees with me that he cannot fix that definite date. In this Resolution he is legislating for something that is indefinite. My Amendment cuts out that particular part which is indefinite, and leaves it as a definite Resolution, so that the Committee may say that for the deficiency period, of the ending of which the Minister himself does not know the hour or the day, the contributions shall remain as they are, and, when there is the appearance of good trade and the likelihood of the deficiency period coming to an end, then the Minister can bring in a short amend-
ing Bill with a new Financial Resolution, which shall fix the rates at that period.

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister can bring in an Amending Bill at any time, whatever may be said in the Resolution. But undoubtedly the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be that the present contributions would remain indefinitely, and therefore the charge is increased.

Mr. PRINGLE: On that point of Order. I submit that under the Bill as it stands the contributions during the first period are indefinite at the present time, and the object of the Amendment is that this Bill should deal solely with this indefinite period. When the indefinite period comes to an end, then, as the Bill would make no further provision, it would be the duty of Parliament to amend it.

The CHAIRMAN: It may be found, when the Bill is considered in Committee, that this Resolution does not cover some of the Clauses, and the Chairman of the Committee may rule that those Clauses will have to drop. I am not considering the Bill at all, but am considering the Resolution, and undoubtedly the effect of this Amendment of the Resolution would be to increase the charge.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Would you accept an Amendment to leave out paragraph (a.)?

The CHAIRMAN: I am considering what would be left. That Amendment would undoubtedly be in order, but I cannot conceive what would be left after it had been passed.

Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
I do so because I submit that this paragraph is quite unnecessary, and for this reason. The Minister told us yesterday that the deficiency period would be, at the very earliest, 18 months ahead, and an examination of the White Paper which he has laid before the House shows that it will be not 18 months, but 2½ years at the very earliest before this particular period can arise, because on page 5 of the White Paper he shows that in October, 1924, over a year and a half hence, there will be a deficiency of over £20,000,000 to wipe out.

Sir M. BARLOW: That depends on the numbers of the unemployed. I gave the
estimate of unemployed at 1,250,000. If the numbers fall below that, as they may well do in two and a half years time, the figures will fall in proportion.

Mr. THOMSON: When the Treasury submit a White Paper for the guidance of the House they are hardly entitled to run away from their own figures. The House only has for its guidance the estimate which has been arrived at by the experts of the Treasury, consulting with the right hon. Gentleman, and they say that in October, 1924, more than a year and a half hence, there will be a deficiency of over £20,000,000. Therefore it is clear you have to wipe out that £20,000,000 before you come to the end of the deficiency period and surely the Minister would be more than sanguine if he suggested that out of a total income of £47,000,000 a year he was going to wipe out £20,000,000 in one year. If the figures are examined from April, 1924, to October, 1924, they show a. reduction of less than £2,000,000 in six months. If the reduction is on the same ratio it will be only £4,000,000 a year and it will take five years before it is wiped out. We all hope unemployment will decrease at a more rapid rate, but under the most sanguine expectations it will take at least two and a half years, and probably three and a half, before you come to the hypothetical period known as the end of the deficiency period when this Financial Resolution is necessary. Therefore I submit my Amendment is not so foolish as it may appear at first sight because why should we pass a Financial Resolution which cannot under any circumstances be operative for two and a half years hence? In the last four years we have had no fewer than six, if not seven, amending Unemployment Insurance Bills and to suggest that we should to-night, after 11 o'clock, without proper consideration, pass a Financial Resolution which will not be operative for at least 2½ years is surely not treating this question with the careful consideration it deserves.
I wish to protest, at the same time, against this habit of taking Financial Resolutions after 11 o'clock. On these Bills the Financial Resolutions are the crux of the whole question. Hon. Members who were on the Committees last Parliament will know that Amendment after Amendment was ruled out by the Chair because the Financial Resolutions taken after 11 o'clock prevented the
subject matter of the Amendments being dealt with, and in the matter of Unemployed Insurance, whether you wish to reduce the qualifying period, whether you wish to extend the benefit, whether you wish to bring in the innocent victims of trade disputes or whatever Amendment you take you are in some way or other affecting the Financial Resolution. Therefore what we do to-night on this Financial Resolution practically settles and determines the whole of our procedure upstairs. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and realise that these Resolutions are not necessary to-night. It will be 2½ years, and probably more, before they can became operative, and it is not in keeping with sound legislation nor with strict finance to deal with hypothetical periods in this slipshod way.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I submit that the Amendment to paragraph (a) standing in the names of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), the bon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), and myself, on line 7, to leave out the words
and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions lit rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women nine pence, in the ease of boys six pence, and in the case of girls four pence half penny; and—
would be in order, without reference to the previous Amendment. The Resolution would then stand as if dealing with the first period. There is no proposal therefore, to widen the scope of the Resolution. If the Amendment were accepted its only effect would be to disable the Committee from making any provision for any period beyond the emergency period. In these circumstances, if it is in order, suggest that you should put the Question in such a way as to safeguard the Second Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member refers to the Amendment on line 7, that. I have already ruled out of order. If the hon. Member merely wishes to move that there should be no power to continue the present equal contribution between the deficiency period and a date to he prescribed, and thereby to lessen
the scope of the Resolution and lessen the amount to be paid by the State that would be in order; but I do not gather that that is his intention.

Mr. PRINGLE: If my Amendment were accepted, the Resolution would read:
(a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution.
That is a specific Resolution, giving the Committee power to make provision within that limit for the period to be prescribed under the Act. If the remainder of the Resolution be left out, there is no provision for that continuing period, and it will come to an end at the date prescribed in the Act.

The CHAIRMAN: I see the object of the hon. Member. The effect of the Amendment would be to cut out the whole of the latter part. By that falling out the scope of the Resolution, undoubtedly, would be increased; therefore, the Amendment is not in order.

Mr. PRINGLE: Obviously, the scope cannot be increased if part of the Resolution is to be cut out. The whole effect is to make it impossible to deal with the permanent part of the Act. The object of the Amendment is not to allow the Government while they are passing an emergency Measure rendered necessary by the urgent conditions of the time, and necessarily rushing the legislation through the House, to pass a permanent Measure dealing with hypothetical conditions which we cannot foresee. The object is to prevent the Committee from being hampered and delayed by this provision from concentrating on what is required, leaving Parliament to deal with the subsequent situation, with a view to a permanent settlement, when the time arrives.

The CHAIRMAN: The Resolution, as it would be if amended by the hon. Member, would continue the equality of the present contribution. That would be out of order; but to leave out the whole of paragraph (a) would be very much to limit the scope of the Resolution, and that would be in order.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: The first part of paragraph (a) defines what payment is to be made between the end of the deficiency period and the date to be prescribed. The first part says:
it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—
(a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution.
If the Resolution end there, there is no provision made for any payment after that date, which is to be fixed by the Act. If the second portion remains in, that extends the payment. That makes the payment operative not only between the end of the deficiency period and the date to be fixed, hut after the date that has been fixed. The effect of the Amendment to leave out the second part of the paragraph is to reduce the scope of the Financial Resolution. by making no provision whatever for payment after the date that has been prescribed by the Act. Therefore instead of extending the scope I submit that it is only limiting the scope.

The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the whole of the provision, if this were eliminated.

Mr. MacDONALD: That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—

(a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution—"
and then the period "as from and after" was to be dealt with afterwards. The effect is to limit the period during which payments are to be made.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to make provision merely for the period between the end of the deficiency period and the date prescribed?

Mr. PRINGLE: That is left in.

Mr. MacDONALD: There is provision first for the payment between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed. What I suggest is
that provision ought not to be made for after that date. This is done in the second part of the Resolution. Therefore, if the Resolution be cut in two, and the second part is deleted, provision is made from the end of the deficiency period.

The CHAIRMAN: The result would be to allow the Committee to place the date at, perhaps, the year 2000, after which equal contributions should be made.

Mr. MacDONALD: When we discuss the Bill, and the date to he put in, we can move that as an Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise at present. What the hon. Gentleman appears to be contending is that the limitation in the length of time of this Resolution shall he left out. That is not in order.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, One argument which he advanced was that it would take two and a half years before the deficiency period came to an end. In examining this subject the Committee must have regard to the White Paper issued on this subject by the Government. I find in the Report of 25th March, 1922, that the actuary at that time, basing his figures on information supplied to him by the Minister of Labour, estimated the net debt to the Exchequer on 5th April this year at £14,500,000. But on examining the White Paper issued with this Bill, I find that the estimated deficiency is there estimated at £18,500,000. In other words the figures of a year ago have increased by 25 per cent.

Sir M. BARLOW: On the 19th April, 1923.

Sir G. COLLINS: I make the right hon. Gentleman a present of the difference. I place no blame on the shoulders of anyone when endeavouring to estimate figures on this subject, but the two White Papers clearly show that the Estimates of the Government in the past have riot been accurate, and that the end of the deficiency period of 2½ years may well be, as my hon. Friend behind me said, four or five years, or even more. To-night we are discussing the Financial Resolution of the largest insurance fund in the world. The Government, are asking the House to discuss this subject,
which fixes any contribution from His Majesty's Government for the purposes of unemployed insurance for the coming year, at this late hour. It is a subject that concerns intimately 10,000,000 people.
I think the contribution from the Government is insufficient, because the burden which is being placed on insured persons to-day is very heavy—is. 9d. Tenpence from the employer and 9d. from the insured person, making ls. 7d., was not perhaps an excessive figure twelve months ago, but to-day, with falling wages, this figure is indeed a heavy burden on all people in insured trades. I was hoping that in the coming year, with reduced Estimates in other Departments, His Majesty's Government might find a larger sum for unemployed insurance purposes. This Financial Resolution, when it becomes law, will fix the amount to be paid to the insured persons—

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the lion. Gentleman is supporting the Amendment. The one point of the Amendment is to delete the whole of paragraph (a) from the Resolution, as being unnecessary.

Sir G. COLLINS: I was using the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, I think, as you well know, in endeavouring to delete a particular Clause, while objecting to the Clause in particular, and advancing my reasons. I submit that I am in order in dealing with the main general proposition as the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. This contribution, fixed under the Financial Resolution, will place, during the coining year, very heavy burdens on every local authority. The amount to be paid under the Financial Resolution will give certain benefits to the insured persons. The Parish Councils in Scotland will borrow £1,000,000; the local authorities in England will borrow £8,000,000. That is a total of £9,000,000 for borrowed money; and the Insurance Fund itself will require to borrow, if the past year be any guide to the coming year—the Minister of Labour will correct me if I am wrong—a further slim of £15,000,000.

Sir M. BARLOW: indicated dissent.

Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. May I remind him that in the present year the Insurance Fund is borrowing £15,000,000. If the present year is any guide to the
coming year, there will be £15,000,000 borrowed under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and a further £9,000,000 borrowed by the local authorities throughout the country, making a total sum of £24,000,000.
If those figures be at all correct—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—this Financial Resolution is inadequate in amount. It does not deal with the dire distress of the country and the heavy burdens on local authorities in a manner which should commend itself to the Committee. In supporting the Amendment—although I am well aware that by the strict interpretation of the rules of the House it means a restricted contribution from the State—I wish to voice my own opinion that the Government, in this matter, have not had regard to the national circumstances which exist to-day. They had taken too little heed of the heavy burden being placed on local authorities, and should have come to the House and asked for a larger contribution for State purposes towards the needs of every locality.

Mr. HAYDAY: I rise to speak on this subject because I feel that the Government have not given the amount of consideration to the financial provision necessary under this Resolution that would justify them in becoming active participants in the desire to relieve the distress caused in consequence of unemployment. As I have stated before, even the memorandum is quite misleading. It speaks in terms of a State contribution, approximately one-third. The State's contribution is one-fourth of the aggregate contribution. It proposes by this Financial Resolution eventually to get back to the payment of one-fifth of the aggregate weekly contribution. This is, at a time when it should set an example in the direction of easing the length of the deficiency period. It holds out no hope beyond saying this, "The deficiency is cleared by three-fourths being paid by employer and workman, and by our paying one-fourth. We then propose to drop back to a one-fifth payment although we get hack to a permanent piece of legislation that will restrict the period of payment to the recipients "—I mean, of course, the period of twenty-six. I would urge, firstly, that there was no need for the opening
words in this Financial Resolution, that automatically when the deficiency period ceased the smaller contribution should then be brought into operation. I still urge that Ministers should shoulder their share of the financial burden, that instead of one-fourth it should be one-third, and after the deficiency period instead of one-fifth it should be one-third.
If we examine the Estimates of the late Government, which will not be disputed by my right hon. Friend, because at that time he was Parliamentary Secretary to the ex-Labour Minister, we find that there we had it, as he will remember, that during the early part of the 1920 Act operation they were then contributing only one-fifth of the total. They increased their share of the contribution in 1921, when they put on to the general unemployment funds all the ex-service men who were before that a direct charge upon the Treasury. They were drawing their unemployment allowances as ex-service men, not as men in industry—as men demobilised and thrown on an over-full labour market. The State took on that responsibility, but they said: "Now, in return for our making a slightly increased contribution, your fund mush take over t he responsibility of all the unemployed ex-service men," and they put them on to the fend, and they helped, by easing the pressure on the State, to create the necessity for borrowing powers from the Treasury in order to meet the industrial claims of the unemployed.
12 M.
It was estimated that from November, 1920, until the end of June of the present year £140,000,000 would be spent in unemployment payments. It was the statement made at the time the first borrowing powers were asked for; it was repeated when the extension of those borrowing powers was required. Out of the £140,000,000 I am approximately correct in saying that, taking the early period of the 1920 Act when the Treasury provided one-fifth, and the subsequent period up to now when the State provides one-fourth, out of that £140,000,000 the State will have contributed £34,000,000, and the employers and workmen £106,000,000. The one-third share would be slightly over £46,500,000 for that period, instead of which the State limits its financial responsibility to £34,000,000, a deficit of £12,000,000, almost the equivalent of the deficiency being created by the heavy
calls made for unemployment payments, and these, I assert, are consequent on the extra load placed on the fund when the men discharged from the Army were put upon the general unemployment contribution fund. I say that £12,000,000 odd ought certainly to be a real contribution. I know it will be said, "But if we enlarge our financial responsibilities in this Bill there is no return for it."I want to put this to the Minister. It is well known that guardians and local authorities spent between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000 for the last financial year prior to the War. In the last financial year boards of guardians and local authorities spent £44,000,000 in relief of unemployment. Their estimate for the financial year now running out is £40,000,000, and I am going to suggest that you have taken and will take in two and a half years £106,000,000 from the employer and workman without paying your fair share, and that that £106,000,000 has eased the Treasury from their responsibility in the matter, and has eased the extra charge that would have fallen upon boards of guardians and local authorities.

Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to address the Committee in favour of an increased charge on the Treasury, when he is supporting an Amendment, which is to limit the duration of the charge?

The CHAIRMAN: I think it is illogical, but i am afraid there are numerous precedents for it in Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. HAYDAY: I am not supporting the Amendment, but I am certainly suggesting that the Ministry ought to have been more generous in their Financial Resolution. You, Mr. Hope, would not receive an Amendment increasing the amount, but surely I can suggest what I consider to be the shortcomings of the Ministry in this particular matter. Apart from the general financial gain, the State, if it had not caused to be made through the other joint contributors this great contribution, would have been faced with an unstable, uncertain temperament amongst the people, and would necessarily have suffered had there been no such provision made. Having got out of their responsibility after 2½ years with a £34,000,000 responsibility, it is only fair that, having by their act created the deficiency period and the necessity for appealing for
borrowing powers, they should ease the deficiency period by making a more just contribution. There is a question I want to submit to the Minister, and which I may perhaps he allowed to submit now. It deals with a financial provision in the Resolution in connection with the education authorities.

The CHAIRMAN: This is not the proper time to raise that. This Amendment deals only with paragraph (a).

Mr. PRINGLE: The object of the Amendment is to retain the control of Parliament. At the present time during the deficiency period no Financial Resolution is required. The funds are there. There comes an end to the deficiency period—a date which I do not think the Minister of Labour would even now predict with any confidence or assurance. He has suggested one and a half years or two and a half years. Some authorities believe the period will not come to an end before four years are over. If that be so, it is a very large order to ask the House now to lay down the conditions of contribution for a period four years hence, when we are quite unaware as to the conditions which will then prevail. Accordingly, my hon. Friend proposes to omit the whole of paragraph (a). It will not diminish by a single penny the amount available for unemployment during this deficiency period. It will not diminish the State contributions, nor the contributions made by the employers and employed. It merely says that when this period comes to an end, the Government will be compelled to come to Parliament and ask for a provision which is appropriate to the conditions then prevailing. If we allow this Resolution to pass, Parliament loses all control. We do not know what the prescribed date may be. You, Mr. Hope, suggested that it might be the year 2000. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that in a Bill, in which the prescribed date is made the year 2000, we are actually laying down the State contribution.

Sir M. BARLOW: indicated dissent.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am taking the Chairman's ruling. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that the Chair is wrong.

The CHAIRMAN: I suggested that the Committee might be so foolish, if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, as
to fix the date at the year 2000. I did not say that the Committee or the Minister would do so.

Mr. PRINGLE: I suggest that the prescribed date may be so made, and we have no guidance as to what date the Minister of Labour considers the prescribed date will be. We are legislating for a vague and indefinite future, and in relation thereto Parliament, under this Resolution, is depriving itself of all control with regard to the contributions to be made by the three authorities. It is in order to preserve the control of Parliament that this Amendment is moved. If we allow this to go, the conditions are stereotyped. No private Member can introduce a Bill to alter those conditions, because he would be ruled out of order, as the Bill would be a charge upon the public purse. The Government can simply say that for the purpose of tranquillity they desire to do nothing, and unless we can force the

Government to bring in a Bill there is no remedy for the unemployed. If you wish to keep in your hands a remedy, you must confine the Government strictly to what is necessary now. It will get the Bill through all the quicker. We are anxious to get it through, for the purposes of the gap, which alone requires haste; whereas, under the guise of getting through emergency legislation, the Government, under the powers conferred by this Resolution, are to be enabled to lay down conditions, first of all, for a second period up to the prescribed date, as to which the right hon. Gentleman has given us no information, and which may bind the Committee to the year 2000, as the Chairman has suggested. As this is a preposterous absurdity, I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.

Question put, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 121.

Division No. 24.]
AYES.
[2.13 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Harrison, F. C.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Curzon, Captain viscount
Harvey, Major S E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawke. John Anthony


Apsley, Lord
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H,
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Barlow, Rt. Hon Sir Montague
Ednam, Viscount
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Barnston, Major Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Becker, Harry
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Houfton, John Plowright


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hume, G. H.


Berry, Sir George
Evans. Ernest (Cardigan)
Hurd, Percy A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian. N.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)


Blundell, F. N.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hutchison, W, (Kelvingrove)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Brass. Captain W.
Fildes, Henry
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clitton (Newbury)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Bruford, R.
Fexcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Frece, Sir Walter de
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. Q


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Furness, G. J.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C)


Button, H. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lloyd, Cyril E (Dudley)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Goff. Sir R. Park
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Lorden, John William


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Lori-Williams, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Chapman, Sir S.
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Lumley, L. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Clarry, Reginald George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)


Clayton, G. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W.D'by)
Manville, Edward


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Halstead, Major D.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Cope, Major William
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Rentoul, G. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Sutcliffe, T.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Murchison, C. K.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Nall, Major Joseph
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Newman, Colonel J R. P. (Finchley)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain E.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)
Waring, Major Walter


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wells, S. R.


Paget, T, G.
Sandon, Lord
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Peast, William Edwin
Shepperson, E. W.
Whitla, Sir William


Pennefather, De Fonbianque
Shipwright, Captain D.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Penny, Frederick George
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Winterton, Earl


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Skelton, A. N.
Wise, Frederick


Peto, Basil E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Viscount


Philipson, H. H.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pielou, D. P.
Sparkes, H. W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Price, E. G.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Privett, F. J.
Steel, Major S. Strang



Raine, W.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Oolonet


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gibbs.


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-



NOES.


Adams, D.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hardle, George D.
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Vernon
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Amman, Charles George
Hastings, Patrick
Roberts, Frederick O. (W, Bromwich)


Attlee, C. R.
Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, S.


Batey, Joseph
Harriotts, J.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, W'lllam (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buckle, J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burgess, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Sullivan, J.


Buxton. Charles (Accrington)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thornton, M.


Cape, Thomas
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Tillett, Benjamin


Chappie, W A.
Kikwood, D
Tout, W. J.


Collin, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, C. P.


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Turner, Ben


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lee, F.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Linfield, F. C.
Warne, G. H.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
M'Entee, V. L.
Webb, Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Weir, L. M.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Wheatley, J.


Falconer, J.
Maxton, James
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Muir, John W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Nichol, Robert
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W,
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parker, H. (Hanley)



Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Phillipps, Vivian
Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Mr.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Pringle.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. HARRIS: There is one part of this Resolution which introduces a lieu novel principle that has a good deal to recommend it, namely, that the responsibility for looking after the young insured persons under 18 years of age should be given to
the education authorities. That in itself is a very good thing, because no section of the unemployed are of more concern to us than the young men and women out of work. They are unfortunately growing in number: there is no sign of a diminution in the number and they are likely in the battle of life to be handi-
capped by the fact that they are not learning any trade at the most critical period of their lives. Any scheme to improve their lot and to ensure that more interest is taken in their welfare should commend itself to this Committee. But I have to suggest that, at any rate as far as London is concerned, the proposals in their particular form are neither economical nor sound. If the Committee will refer to the Memorandum, they will see it is suggested in paragraph 12 that the proposals will not appreciably increase the cost. They will involve some extra expense on the Exchequer, but I should like to be assured that they will not also mean extra expense on the ratepayers. The present system is now working on the whole fairly satisfactorily. The London County Council through its education authority has had 10 or 11 years' experience in carrying out this particular work in looking after those who are leaving school. They give advice to these young people when they are making a start in life; they advise them as to the kind of occupation they should engage in; they watch generally over their welfare when they get work and undoubtedly by means of these welfare committees and the various other social organisations the County Council has accomplished some very fine work.
It is now proposed, as I understand it, that all this work shall come under the Ministry of Labour and be done through the Employment Exchange. That, I submit, is a most revolutionary proposal. The education authority is surely the right authority to control these young people. Another alternative is, that the whole of this work should go to the education committee, and that the Employment Exchange should be duplicated. Is there going to be parallel machinery set up? Are we going to have outside the Employment Exchanges another organisation parallel with the Employment Exchanges under the local authorities? If so, surely that is a needless expense. I assume the cost is to be borne by the Fund. I notice that the paragraph points out that the expense of administration has to be borne by the Exchequer, but, ultimately, it is to be charged back on this unfortunate overburdened Insurance Fund. In paragraph 11, the Committee will notice that the administrative expenses of the unem-
ployment insurance scheme are estimated at rather less than 8½ per cent. of the annual revenue. That is a big charge on the Fund. Under this new scheme for the setting up of parallel organisations under the education authorities, you will have a still further percentage charge on the Fund. I think the Committee should hesitate before they pass this proposal, and I would have liked to move that it be omitted, but I fear that, if the financial provision were omitted, the charge might wholly fall on the public authority, and that would be disastrous. Therefore I do not like to take that step. But I warn the Minister that, unless some satisfactory assurance is forthcoming, there will be a lot of opposition to these financial proposals when the Bill gets into Committee. For my part, I think, as regards London, it would be a tragedy to break up the fine work done in co-operation with the Employment Exchanges and the education committees which has been going on for the last 10 years. It has worked well. It has developed and expanded to a great extent, and it would be a retrograde step to hand over that work entirely to the education authority and to set up elaborate new machinery, or, alternatively, to hand it over entirely to the Employment Exchanges.

Sir M. BARLOW: I think I can deal with that point in two sentences. I entirely endorse what he has said of the admirable work done by the Committee for many years. I have had that work under my observation, and I accept cordially and reinforce all that the hon. Member says on the subject. Now, then, as to the proposals in this Bill. I am glad the hon. Member accepts the general policy which gives the education authority the option of taking over the entirety of the work This gives them the option and says that, if they take over the work for those from 14 to 16 under the Chelmsford recommendations, they must also take it over from 16 to 18. This Clause makes provision for it to be taken over. So far as I can see, there will be no extra charge upon the rates at all by the working out of this provision. I believe these arrangements made now for some provision by means of the Board of Education will continue. I cannot see any possibility, even if the present joint arrangement continues, of increased
charge arising. It will be open to the London authority to make full use of this.

Mr. HARDIE: Where we have great numbers of boys and girls, is it in the mind of the Minister of Labour, since he is making it optional on a city, that it should be open to them to take action in regard to finding something useful in the form of training. In the city of Glasgow, in a period like this, boys and girls are liable to be influenced by the worst in life.

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not quite sure I appreciate the hon. Member's point. I think what he refers to is the scheme recently worked out between the President of the Board of Education and myself with regard to juvenile classes, where the State pays 75 per cent. of the cost if the locality will put up the remaining 25 per cent. That is not affected by the proposals made here. The proposals here are for the administrative work of finding employment. All we say to the local authorities is, that they should make their choice either to leave the work under the Ministry of Labour, with a juvenile employment committee, and let the Minister make arrangements for the young people between 14 and 18; or, if the local authorities wish to take it, they should take it so that there should be no difficulty between the Employment Exchange and the education authority. But if the education authority takes it, they must do so in accordance with the Chelmsford recommendations and take over the work of insurance as agents for the Ministry of Labour—representing trustees of the fund. They must take over from 16 to 18. I think that is reasonable. The broad principle running throughout this
policy is, roughly, that the hand which finds employment is the hand which pays benefit.. That is from 14 to 18—the whole period. If a local authority takes the option, that local authority will find employment from 16 to 18, and they ought to be responsible for unemployment benefit.

Mr. SULLIVAN: On page 5, line 20, you say:
In accordance with a scale fixed by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury on the basis of the sum required to reimburse to authorities—.
I think you should strike out the words "on the basis." I have had a communication from the Education Department of our country, and they are very anxious that the Ministry should not push burdens back on the local authorities, who have enough to hear already. May I be allowed to suggest that you should strike out these words?

The CHAIRMAN: There is no line 20 in the Resolution.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Wednesday).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty - four Minutes before One o'Clock.